Why Doesn't the Big Bang Disprove God?

[Jacob18]

I think the Big Bang disproves God. That is the only reason I cannot believe in God.

Why do you think the fact of the Big Bang still has room for God?

 

[zro_x]

because Catholics aren’t biblical literalists. We don’t have to believe that God created the Earth in six days, as it says in the bible. The bible was not meant to convey truths about history and science. Rather, It was meant to convey moral truths.

some parts of the bible, however, must be historically accurate. Jesus’s resurrection, for example, is something we have to believe actually happened.

The church has the ultimate authority to declare what parts of the bible are historically true, and which parts of the bible can be interpreted metaphorically or poetically.

 

[Jacob18]

because Catholics aren’t biblical literalists. We don’t have to believe that God created the Earth in six days, as it says in the bible. The bible was not meant to convey truths about history and science. Rather, It was meant to convey moral truths.

some parts of the bible, however, must be historically accurate. Jesus’s resurrection, for example, is something we have to believe actually happened.

The church has the ultimate authority to declare what parts of the bible are historically true, and which parts of the bible can be interpreted metaphorically or poetically.

I understand that point and I think that covers most misconceptions about Catholicism.

What I am saying is:

• I have never really thought the argument for God based on design was very strong.
• I believe the universe could have happened by chance, and I think that is pretty much proven by science.
• I believe in evolution.
• I, therefore, see no need for God to exist. So I do not think he does.

The only thing I do not feel sure of is the question “What caused the Big Bang?” even though Steven Hawking does seem to have an explaination for it. I don’t particularly like his explaination.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think the Big Bang disproves God. That is the only reason I cannot believe in God.

Why do you think the fact of the Big Bang still has room for God?

The Big Bang theory provides cogent evidence that time, space, energy and matter all began to exist at a point some 13.7 billion years ago. It seems to me that any explanation for an effect must be sufficient to explain the effect. In the case of the universe, since matter, energy, time and space all began to exist at the Big Bang, these cannot form any part of the explanation for why it happened, so that consideration seems to point towards a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial explanation.

How do those remaining “qualities” serve as proof against God, who is considered to be the eternal (timeless) boundless spirit (immaterial and non-spacial) who willed the universe into existence ex nihilo (from nothing, i.e., from no pre-existing material)? Most philosophers and scientists would concede that standard Big Bang cosmology tends toward being supportive of theistic claims rather than against them.

I am not clear why you believe Big Bang is evidence against the existence of God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

• I believe the universe could have happened by chance, and I think that is pretty much proven by science.

On the contrary, science is moving closer to showing that such a finely tuned universe far exceeds the possibility of coming about by chance.

See the video podcasts on this page:

magisreasonfaith.org/podcast.html

The only thing I do not feel sure of is the question “What caused the Big Bang?” even though Steven Hawking does seem to have an explaination for it. I don’t particularly like his explaination.

I concur with you on this.

 

[Razanir]

I direct you toward my signature. The Big Bang was originally theorized by Monsignor Georges Lemaîte, a Catholic priest. I hardly think he’d theorize something that went against his religion. Also, probably all the Catholics I know support what’s called “theistic evolution” which is exactly what it sounds like.

The Big Bang theory provides cogent evidence that time, space, energy and matter all began to exist at a point some 13.7 billion years ago. It seems to me that any explanation for an effect must be sufficient to explain the effect. In the case of the universe, since matter, energy, time and space all began to exist at the Big Bang, these cannot form any part of the explanation for why it happened, so that consideration seems to point towards a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial explanation.

How do those remaining “qualities” serve as proof against God, who is considered to be the eternal (timeless) boundless spirit (immaterial and non-spacial) who willed the universe into existence ex nihilo (from nothing, i.e., from no pre-existing material)? Most philosophers and scientists would concede that standard Big Bang cosmology tends toward being supportive of theistic claims rather than against them.

I am not clear why you believe Big Bang is evidence against the existence of God.

I’ve never heard this one before. Thanks!

On a side note, I don’t understand why people who take the Bible literally will reject science when it says “evolution” but not when it says “the world is round”

 

[waanju]

Because God caused the Big Bang!
Even if you accept that the entire universe happened because of mathematical chance (unlikely) including the development of humans with our morals and self awareness and ability to comprehend things like beauty and our physics-defying free will, you’d have to contend with the first cause. What started it all?

 

[JRKH]

I think the Big Bang disproves God. That is the only reason I cannot believe in God.

Why do you think the fact of the Big Bang still has room for God?

From Wikipedia ( I know…)
Independently deriving Friedmann’s equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the Universe.[35]

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the Universe was concentrated into a single point, a “primeval atom” where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.
Why would a Roman Catholic priest propose something that disproves God???

The Big Bang, like so many other things in science, explains “how” but does not really explain “why”…God has more to do with the “Why” of things…So in a nutshell that is why there is still room for God…

Peace
James

 

[triumphguy]

I think the Big Bang disproves God. That is the only reason I cannot believe in God.

Why do you think the fact of the Big Bang still has room for God?

Why would it disprove God

It seems like proof of God to me.

 

[zro_x]

@ waanju, Peter plato, and Jacob18

Maybe there didn’t need to be a first cause. I don’t know how well this would fly with trained physicists, but I have a theory.

modern physicists tell us that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. This means that the further back in time you go, the slower it was expanding.

One can imagine a tape of the “big bang” being run backwards. The edges of the universe rush towards the center and slow down as they approach it. As the universe approaches the middle, Its size and speed both approach zero. One can imagine this going on for infinity…

 

[waanju]

@ waanju, Peter plato, and Jacob18

Maybe there didn’t need to be a first cause. I don’t know how well this would fly with trained physicists, but I have a theory.

modern physicists tell us that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. This means that the further back in time you go, the slower it was expanding.

One can imagine a tape of the “big bang” being run backwards. The edges of the universe rush towards the center and slow down as they approach it. As the universe approaches the middle, Its size and speed both approach zero. One can imagine this going on for infinity…

That sounds intriguing, but with my current single-semester-of-college-physics understanding, I don’t know if I agree or not.

 

[triumphguy]

I understand that point and I think that covers most misconceptions about Catholicism.

What I am saying is:

• I have never really thought the argument for God based on design was very strong.
• **I believe the universe could have happened by chance, and I think that is pretty much proven by science.
• I believe in evolution.
• I, therefore, see no need for God to exist. So I do not think he does.
  **
  The only thing I do not feel sure of is the question “What caused the Big Bang?” even though Steven Hawking does seem to have an explaination for it. I don’t particularly like his explaination.

That’s as cogent an argument as two goldfish arguing whether there is a world outside their bowl.

 

[Equites_Christi]

• I, therefore, see no need for God to exist. So I do not think he does.

To address your reasoning rather than your specific point: in terms of explaining the universe, there is no need for the tree in my backyard or you or me to exist. Yet we exist, do we not?

As to your specific point, others will show you how there are logical lines of thought that point to some “God-thing”, be it the God of Abraham or a deist’s god or the universe itself. From there, Christianity presents a convincing case as to the identity of this “God-thing”.

 

[bzkoss236]

I think part of the argument boils down to the fact that matter, which is something, cannot come from nothing without there being something that exists outside of our universe that could create. You could argue that matter could have come from another universe, but then where did that matter come from? It cannot infinitely recurs because it had to have started from somewhere. Though, studies of entropy have shown that this is likely not the case. So where did the matter come from? Why are the laws of physics as they are? Why does the universe seem to run to perfectly? These are some of the questions which lead us to conclude that there is something outside our universe which has the ability to create.

Did you know Einstein believed in God? He wasn’t Christian, but he believed in God, though as a non-personal creator.

 

[Nan_S]

I understand that point and I think that covers most misconceptions about Catholicism.

What I am saying is:

• I have never really thought the argument for God based on design was very strong.
• I believe the universe could have happened by chance, and I think that is pretty much proven by science.
• I believe in evolution.
• I, therefore, see no need for God to exist. So I do not think he does.

The only thing I do not feel sure of is the question “What caused the Big Bang?” even though Steven Hawking does seem to have an explaination for it. I don’t particularly like his explaination.

It has been a while since I read Hawking’s explanation, but I seem to remember it being a “big crunch” followed by a “big bang.”

The three problems with it are these:

1. The crunch-bang rebounding cycle is all theoretical.
2. All the evidence shows an expanding universe with no rebound point anytime in the future. There is no evidence of the expansion slowing.
3. There is no evidence of small-scale rebounding either. We have Black Holes, but none which have ever reversed themselves.

Getting back to your points:

1. Attempts to scientifically test the organization of chaos have tended to disprove the random chance theory. When chaotic situations are created and left alone to see what happens, the elements become more chaotic, not more organized. It takes an outside force to cause them to organize.
2. Do you think God has no role in evolution? The fossil record is not smooth and gradual. It shows a lot of sudden unexplainable jumps. It’s like God reached down from Heaven and gave something a nudge to push it to the next level.
3. When you deny the possibility of God’s existence because you yourself see no reason for it, you are declaring that your own limited, flawed, human understanding and perception are supreme. That is a fallacy of the highest order.

Think back on when you were a kid and your dad made you do something that you saw no reason for (study English composition and history, fasten your seat belt, pay for something you damaged). Now that you are older can you see the reason for some of it? The same answer applies to your “can’t see a reason for it” argument against God.

 

[Jacob18]

That’s as cogent an argument as two goldfish arguing whether there is a world outside their bowl.

Good sir, what I am saying is if the whole of everything is explained - our existance and the universe’s existance, explained by science and physics then there would be no need for a god. Then why should I believe that one exists?

I ask out of ignorance. I want an explaination so I could say with complete faith that I do believe or do not believe. I am hoping for a detailed explaination on why there is a need for God, not sassy comments. No disrespect intended, and it seems like you would be more knowledgable about what I am asking about than most people on CAF.

Why is there a need for God?

 

[bzkoss236]

Good sir, what I am saying is if the whole of everything is explained - our existance and the universe’s existance, explained by science and physics then there would be no need for a god. Then why should I believe that one exists?

I ask out of ignorance. I want an explaination so I could say with complete faith that I do believe or do not believe. I am hoping for a detailed explaination on why there is a need for God, not sassy comments. No disrespect intended, and it seems like you would be more knowledgable about what I am asking about than most people on CAF.

Why is there a need for God?

But that’s the thing. Science still hasn’t explained anything. There are many different theories, but none of them really exclude the possibility of God despite what the scientists may claim. Some of the scientists just don’t want God to exist, so they claim to “disprove” His existence, when they really can’t because God is a metaphysical being, meaning he is beyond the physical experience of space and time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

@ waanju, Peter plato, and Jacob18

Maybe there didn’t need to be a first cause. I don’t know how well this would fly with trained physicists, but I have a theory.

modern physicists tell us that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. This means that the further back in time you go, the slower it was expanding.

One can imagine a tape of the “big bang” being run backwards. The edges of the universe rush towards the center and slow down as they approach it. As the universe approaches the middle, Its size and speed both approach zero. One can imagine this going on for infinity…

The reason for providing an initial starting point 13.7 billion years ago is that the rate of inflation of the universe, along with other factors, provides sufficient data to calculate with a strong measure of accuracy the beginning point of the space-time continuum. Given available astrophysical data scientists are identifying distinct epochs and phases in the expansion of the universe. The BGV Theorem has more or less refuted the possibility of any inflationary model of the universe having had an infinite past.

 

[zro_x]

It cannot infinitely recurs because it had to have started from somewhere. Though, studies of entropy have shown that this is likely not the case.

good point.

But in the example I pointed out earlier, as the tape of the universe runs backwards, Time, and therefore entropy, would slow down! Time flow and entropy increase would both approach zero.

 

[waanju]

Good sir, what I am saying is if the whole of everything is explained - our existance and the universe’s existance, explained by science and physics then there would be no need for a god. Then why should I believe that one exists?

I ask out of ignorance. I want an explaination so I could say with complete faith that I do believe or do not believe. I am hoping for a detailed explaination on why there is a need for God, not sassy comments. No disrespect intended, and it seems like you would be more knowledgable about what I am asking about than most people on CAF.

Why is there a need for God?

This deviates form the Big Bang question, but I think it speaks to your concerns. I think here, you might benefit from looking at things on a different level of existence. For example, let’s take free will. Do you think you have it? Most people do. It’s the basis for nearly all morality (which I’m not using because of the one random philosopher that thinks it evolved). If you accept the existence of free will, you have to acknowledge that the universe is not 100% physical. IF the universe were 100% physical, then everything anyone ever did and all events since the big bang were completely governed by physics. Every time you think that you are thinking or feeling or choosing, it’s just inevitable and unchangeable movements of atoms in your brain. ON EVERY LEVEL. You would be a “meat computer”. Attempts to resolve this issue while maintaining that the universe is 100% physical end up redefining free-will. The only way that free will can really exist is if there is something beyond the physical- a “soul” if you will. Where did this soul come from? It’s cause can’t be physical, because it is not physical.
There, I find evidence that points to God.

(There are a LOT better, more elegant, and more clearly logical ways to state the above, but I’m a relatively uneducated, if reasonably intelligent, first year college student, so I’ve done a poor job.)