Why Doesn't the Big Bang Disprove God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe the world is 5773 years old, consistent with Hasidim. No need to believe in the big bang or evolution! Earthly science is a scam.
 
Jacob18 said:
Why do you think the fact of the Big Bang still has room for God?
Click to expand...
The Big Bang prooves God because the physical universe that came into being at the Big Bang was created out of nothing (ex nihilo), Only God can create something from nothing, that cannot happen in the natural order.
 
Frankly, I think the idea that the “big bang theory” disproves God is more ignorant than some fundamentalist beleiving the account in Genesis.

I’m supposed to take seriously a science that says “somethign came from nothing”, that’s insanity.

God created all. Genesis is an “age appropriate” creation story for a group of goat herders thousands of years ago.

God created all, and it started with the “big bang”.

Evolution and belief in God can go hand and hand.

I think there are bigger, more scentifically and philoscophically sound arguments against God, the big bang theory isn’t one of them.
 
vera_dicere said:
Frankly, I think the idea that the “big bang theory” disproves God is more ignorant than some fundamentalist beleiving the account in Genesis.

I’m supposed to take seriously a science that says “somethign came from nothing”, that’s insanity.

God created all. Genesis is an “age appropriate” creation story for a group of goat herders thousands of years ago.

God created all, and it started with the “big bang”.

Evolution and belief in God can go hand and hand.

I think there are bigger, more scentifically and philoscophically sound arguments against God, the big bang theory isn’t one of them.
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly doesn’t disprove anything. But, we do observe particles winking in and out of existence- it’s part of how we’re able to prove black holes exist. A particle and its anti-particle will form, and then annihilate, but sometimes one of those falls into a black hole (though, now I’m going to be wondering all day what happened to all the antimatter created in the Big Bang) so ex nihilo matter creation does occur all the time, just on a small scale. Now, we’re not sure why this happens. Maybe particle and antiparticle annihilation is really just the two playing tag down a long corridor of alternate realities. I don’t know. I’m not terribly well versed and I’m undercaffeinated. We also don’t know if the Big Bang is the result of a black hole in another Universe. Problem is, we can’t observe anything outside our own Universe, whether it be whatever you want to call the Spirit World, or whether it be other physical realities. So the Big Bang doesn’t prove God either. The Big Bang only proves that this reality used to not exist.
 
SeekerDude said:
Well, it certainly doesn’t disprove anything. But, we do observe particles winking in and out of existence- it’s part of how we’re able to prove black holes exist.** A particle and its anti-particle will form, and then annihilate**, but sometimes one of those falls into a black hole (though, now I’m going to be wondering all day what happened to all the antimatter created in the Big Bang) so ex nihilo matter creation does occur all the time, just on a small scale.
Click to expand...
But those particles you mention are SOMETHING and not NOTHING. Nothing is the absence of anything, even space and time itself! The claim that certain interactions between particles and anti-particles lead to creation ex-nihilo is impossible since those particles are something. The problem here is your understanding of what “nothing” is. Don’t tell me that the existence of a particle and anti-particle which when joined together cancels out is nothing because those particles are something. It is impossible for anything to come out of nothing because nothing has no properties (there is no potential for any actuality).
 
Jacob18 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The singularity called the Big Bang actually plays an important part in rational arguments for God because it shows our universe having a beginning. The singularity is a point with an infinitely high temperature and an infinitely high density. The concept of singularity thus goes back to points, temperature, and density. On the basis of our experiences and our scientific theories we can have a sufficiently complete conception of such a notion. Which is precisely why we can conceive of a possible world where this singularity never existed.

In other words, the singularity was contingent. Contingently existing objects are objects that exist but might as well not have existed. The singularity cannot therefore be reasonably said to be something in which all explanations come to rest. Which is why the question as to why contingent objects do exist is justified. And this is how we arrive at the existence of necessary objects - objects that cannot not exist - as the only possible ultimate ground and explanation for contingent objects.

Now, God is by definition a necessarily existing object which is the cause of everything outside of itself. Certainly, the idea of such an object comes for naturalists uncomfortably close to our concept of God. Which is why atheists like Richard Dawkins suggest that life started from nothing. This notion however can be easily refuted as there is no actual state of affairs and no possible state of affairs in an empty world, but we find many states of affairs in our world. Therefore actual nothingness is impossible.
 
Deers said:
But those particles you mention are SOMETHING and not NOTHING. Nothing is the absence of anything, even space and time itself! The claim that certain interactions between particles and anti-particles lead to creation ex-nihilo is impossible since those particles are something. The problem here is your understanding of what “nothing” is. Don’t tell me that the existence of a particle and anti-particle which when joined together cancels out is nothing because those particles are something. It is impossible for anything to come out of nothing because nothing has no properties (there is no potential for any actuality).
Click to expand...
They are something while they exist, yes. But their existence is temporary. At least from our point of reference. Like I said, they may be playing tag down a long corridor of realities. We don’t know. Likewise the observable Universe may come from another Universe.
 
SeekerDude said:
They are something while they exist, yes. But their existence is temporary. At least from our point of reference. Like I said, they may be playing tag down a long corridor of realities. We don’t know. Likewise the observable Universe may come from another Universe.
Click to expand...
The universe is the sum of contingent objects, as such there cannot be another universe at any point. However, supposing that this would be possible, it still begs the question as to why contingent objects exist. After all, they do not have to exist. It follows that the concept of a set of contingent states that go infinitely far back in the past is unsustainable.
 
Jacob18 said:
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?
Click to expand...
the “big bang” doesn’t prove or disprove God. What is called the “big bang” is an occurence believed to have resulted in the formation of the universe. It of course is not directly observable but the empirical data supports the inference that it once existed and, as I said, resulted in the formation of the universe.

Quantum theories currently conjecture that the “big bang” was a quanum event and this in turn has led many theorists to hypothesize multible universes and, as Lawrence Krauss ecxpresses it, the formation of something from nothing. I read his book and it is compelling, but, of course, little can be shown with the scientific certainty that we have come to associate with “proof”

As for me I have always felt that the existence of God only complicates the issue of what was the primary cause. This is not necessarily because I have any antipathy toward the prospect of their being a primary cause. It is simply that, in the western tradition, the concept of “God” includes a personal god with motives, goals, objectives, purposes and a will. Hence, by assigning such attributes, in my opinion, at least, the result is an anthropromorphic version of a primary cause.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I believe the world is 5773 years old, consistent with Hasidim. No need to believe in the big bang or evolution! Earthly science is a scam.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t agree. In fact, a great deal of that earthly science was done by priests and even sisters.
 
Jacob18 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just passing through. ? Where did the chance come from ?

God Bless
onenow1:)
 
WmJackP said:
As for me I have always felt that the existence of God only complicates the issue of what was the primary cause. This is not necessarily because I have any antipathy toward the prospect of their being a primary cause. It is simply that, in the western tradition, the concept of “God” includes a personal god with motives, goals, objectives, purposes and a will. Hence, by assigning such attributes, in my opinion, at least, the result is an anthropromorphic version of a primary cause.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if you don’t consider the possibility of God as primary cause, then you are left with an inadequate explanation for how inanimate matter could give rise to a subjective reality with motives, goals, objectives, purposes and a will, which is completely lacking as a possibility in a strictly material world. Where does form come from if matter is all there is?

The point of the fine-tuning argument is that form is the result of an incredibly coordinated tuning of the universal constants, all of which came to be virtually at the same instant and none of which had to be set where they are. In fact, none of which even had to be. There is no explanation for the tuning, and therefore for the form it took, to be found in matter because matter came to be at the same instant as the constants that determined the form it would take.

So you can’t point at matter and say, “The form taken by matter was determined by the inherent nature of matter,” because matter does not have an inherent nature. That nature, i.e., form, was determined by the inexplicable alignment of the cosmological constants at the moment of the Big Bang, all of which could have been wildly other than they actually are. So the nature of matter, also, could have been completely different and not given rise to any kind of predictable order.

The point being, to try to explain subjective existence by appealing to material causation begs the question, because material causation, ultimately doesn’t, by some inevitable course inherent in its nature, lead to, nor explain, subjective qualities like will, purpose, intent, or conscious awareness.
 
So you believe in te Big Bang. So,How do you explain after a couple has sex, a life is created? Is there just a random mini bang in the womb?
 
Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed by any process of man. So where did the Big Bang matter and energy come from if not from God. You don’t have to call it God, but the elements of the universe had to come from a source outside time and space, since science has proven that time and space began with the Big Bang. You don’t have to call the source God, but I think you are a fool if you don’t.
 
stevekehl said:
Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed by any process of man. So where did the Big Bang matter and energy come from if not from God. You don’t have to call it God, but the elements of the universe had to come from a source outside time and space, since science has proven that time and space began with the Big Bang. You don’t have to call the source God, but I think you are a fool if you don’t.
Click to expand...
Well that is a compelling and considerate response to the OP
 
Jacob18 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I just think that God caused the Big Bang, evolution, etc. Literally no matter what people do to try to disprove God, the more I can see God at work. I have no issues with the Big Bang or Evolution. I believe in them quite firmly actually and I think there is a beauty in science and religion. The more I study science, the more my faith is strengthened. But that is just me and I am personally wondering…> Please message me on your thoughts of String Theory, I am studying it right now, and I find it to be an extremely interesting topic that might answer Hawking’s questions as to how gravity lost its strength after the big bang. Thank you for your time! Peace!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top