T
The_Scott
Guest
Science answers how the universe was created.
Religion answers why the universe was created.
Both answers can help each other; and you cannot have a complete explanation with only one answer.
- Status
Religion answers why the universe was created.
Both answers can help each other; and you cannot have a complete explanation with only one answer.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
What I meant was that entropy studies have shown that the possibility of infinite recursion, whether from another universe, or from the “rubber band” universe model, are likely not possible, because the entropy approaches 0.
There was a podcast from Catholic Answers with some interesting thoughts:
Proofs for God’s Existence: Part 1
Proofs for God’s Existence: Part 2
The_Reginator
Active member
Yes indeed bzkoss.
Science has done absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of God. Science is merely the study of what God has done and it attempts to come up with plausible theories as to His methods. Unfortunately it seems that most scientists start from the false premise that God does not have anything to do with their observations. That is nothing but an assumption of their part.
On a side note …
In the middle of high school I came to the conclusion that the only way that someone could accept the theory of evolution is by believing in God. When you see stack of, say, soup cans in a grocery store and remove one of the bottom cans the whole stack collapses. If, on the other hand, you dump a bunch of cans on the floor one night they will not become a nice stack without some outside help. That’s my problem with evolution without God.
Where did evolution start? With the big bang I guess.
When it comes to the big bang the question many of us ask is “what banged” and “how did the material that ‘banged’ come to be?”
Jacob18, maybe you could elaborate some more on how the big bang theory shows that God does not exist. I cannot follow that thinking. Then again, it’s getting late and I’m not very smart anyway. (That was false humility.
)
J
Jacob18
Guest
There was a news story which I read about two and a half years ago now - named something like “Steven Hawking finally disproves God”. I found the title upsetting because I had just decided to become a Christian. I read his argument and quickly dismissed it because I didn’t want to hear it. But it was something along the lines of “Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe began.” and went on to say that now that they have a theory as to why the Big Bang happened, there is no need for God. Only in the past few months have I considered it.
I wish I could elaborate on what I am thinking. I had thought about it 24/7 for weeks when I first started not believing in God a few months ago and have hardly thought about Catholicism or philosophy since.
I was starting to speak with a girl on Facebook about Athiesm - she is just anti-religion, and her arguments are the ones against fundementalist Christianity which I find ridiculous… So I decided to try to figure this out, so I could provide better arguments for the existance for God.
I’m completely pro-God. Pro-Catholicism. Secularly Pro-Life.
But, for one of the people who posted earlier, there is one thought in philosophy that insists that everything that does exist has a reason to exist. Something like that. Does anyone know the exact wording?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The Big Bang was theorized by a Belgian Catholic priest.
Z
zro_x
Guest
It seems like Hawking’s moved on to an omniverse theory at this point.
J
Jacob18
Guest
“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”Yes indeed bzkoss.
Science has done absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of God. Science is merely the study of what God has done and it attempts to come up with plausible theories as to His methods. Unfortunately it seems that most scientists start from the false premise that God does not have anything to do with their observations. That is nothing but an assumption of their part.
On a side note …
In the middle of high school I came to the conclusion that the only way that someone could accept the theory of evolution is by believing in God. When you see stack of, say, soup cans in a grocery store and remove one of the bottom cans the whole stack collapses. If, on the other hand, you dump a bunch of cans on the floor one night they will not become a nice stack without some outside help. That’s my problem with evolution without God.
Where did evolution start? With the big bang I guess.
When it comes to the big bang the question many of us ask is “what banged” and "how did the material that ‘banged’ come to be?"
Jacob18, maybe you could elaborate some more on how the big bang theory shows that God does not exist. I cannot follow that thinking. Then again, it’s getting late and I’m not very smart anyway. (That was false humility.
― Lawrence M. Krauss
Just a thought.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
This still doesn’t disprove God. And I’ve heard Hawking’s claims in this regard. I personally think he doesn’t want to believe in God because he feels some kind of resentment given his condition. Anyways, the next question becomes, where does gravity come from? What is it’s source? And he still doesn’t explain where matter came from.
I’m glad you are open minded. It means your questions will be legitimate instead of trying to prove us wrong. You seem to still be searching. It seems that you might want to believe in God, but you are having doubts. Is this right?
I don’t know exactly what you mean, but there is the common saying “Everything exists for a reason”.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
In my view, Hawking really stuck his nose and reputation out on that one. My understanding is that he credits everything coming from gravity.
Suppose they discover the graviton, for which a lot of equations are already drawn up. I think it’s only a matter of time before we do find one.
What then? Did the graviton come before or after gravity?
The problem with modern activist scientists is that they put their dopey philosophical, religious or emotional agenda first.
It’s amazing at how partisan and petty politics has made some of our greatest minds.
There’s very little room for any of that in the scientific method.
Also, I think we should learn how examine something besides using the EM band. Only being able to locate extrasolar planets via clever tricks and gravity silhouettes while projecting know-it-all concepts about creation just seems odd.
T
triumphguy
Guest
I wasn’t being totally sarcastic by my goldfish analogy. Goldfish can only see what they see with their little fishy eyes through murky glass, and can only know what is knowable by their little fishy brains. So it is with us (except our brains aren’t fishy).
There is a need for God because there is a need for love. And without Love there would not be a universe. Everything else, to my little human mind, is speculation.
P
PrayHarder
Guest
What timing! I just read this column by Fr. Barron (host of “Catholicism”):
catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=6&id=60702
Basically, Fr. Barron uses the contingency argument that everything in universe must have a cause. But you must ultimately get to something that has no contingency (no cause) that exists outside the universe. That’s God.
catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=6&id=60702
Basically, Fr. Barron uses the contingency argument that everything in universe must have a cause. But you must ultimately get to something that has no contingency (no cause) that exists outside the universe. That’s God.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You might want to read the article (link below) by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist who looks at time and the expansion rate of the universe. Given that time and space form a “continuum” the fractional rate of expansion of space at the beginning was faster which means that time would have been “faster” back then relative to our position 13.7 billion years removed from the initial event. The article and his web site generally does provide an interesting perspective on time and Big Bang cosmology.
geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx
Z
zro_x
Guest
I don’t know of any scientific proofs, and you may not find any here that fit your standards. My view is that if God wanted us to have irrefutable scientific evidence of his existence we would have it by now. Unfortunately, many of the philosophical arguments also don’t seem to hold water. I think I may have one, however, that, if nothing else, proves that the existence and non-existence of God are both equally possible. I could explain it if you’re interested. From there, you can go on to research various maricles. I find the day the sun danced in Fatima especially compelling.
J
Jacob18
Guest
I want to believe in God and I absolutely want to prove you right.
No… It had something about it in that news story, but I’ve also read about it in Thomism, so it probably has it’s roots with Aristotle.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Why do you think that?
po18guy
Well-known member
Time for a re-think. Just look at who developed, proposed, and convinced none other than EINSTEIN of the big bang’s efficacy as an explanation of creation. Faith and science (reason) - a perfect marriage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
S
sowinskija
Guest
Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.
But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.
Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
Please read this: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#2
But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.
Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
Please read this: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#2
R
Robertanthony
Guest
Lemaître pursued his scientific career for its own sake, not with the idea in the back of his mind to use science to prove God’s existence. He kept physics and metaphysics as separate endeavours. The Big Bang marked the beginning of time and the universe, there is no “before” the Big Bang. It’s as if science started the very moment the Big Bang was set in motion. So science can say with a degree of certainty what happened, how it happened, when it happened but it can say nothing beyond that point, it can’t prove or disprove God. Science is the study of the created realm, anything/anyone beyond it is simply beyond its scope. When a scientist denies the existence of God, he has removed his lab coat and has stepped into the world of speculation (perhaps using his scientific authority to make his speculation look as facts).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
Z
zro_x
Guest
That is an excellent explanation of why atheism ultimately reduces to nihilism and despair. Still, it only proves that God’s existence is more desireable, not that there is any truth in it.
- Status