Why Doesn't the Big Bang Disprove God?

[adawgj]

I always found it interesting that the Big Bang starts with a beginning and in Genesis the first few words are “In the beginning”

 

[rositator]

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!

Exactly!
And another thing that proves God to me even more when talking about matter is time.
Without time matter wouldn’t evolve so just contemplating the concept of time one can clearly see intelligence behind existence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Frankly, I think the idea that the “big bang theory” disproves God is more ignorant than some fundamentalist [believing] the account in Genesis.

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

Well, the Big Bang isn’t Creatio ex Nihilo. The Big Bang starts off with already existing material. Where that material came from isn’t something that’s addressed by the Big Bang any more than a cake recipe addresses how the cake mix came into existence. The lack of information on the production of the cake mix doesn’t imply it came from nothing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, the Big Bang isn’t Creatio ex Nihilo. The Big Bang starts off with already existing material. Where that material came from isn’t something that’s addressed by the Big Bang any more than a cake recipe addresses how the cake mix came into existence. The lack of information on the production of the cake mix doesn’t imply it came from nothing.

Perhaps, but the mix doesn’t whip itself into a fully baked cake of its own accord, either; so even if there is a lack of information about the origin of the cake mix, it is the fact that even if you haven’t explained the origin of the ingredients, you have shown that they don’t explain their own existence, nor do they suffice to explain their current mode of existence qua cake.

Positing a baker, however, does explain the existence of the cake, whereas mere ingredients do not. It is not an unwarranted nor untenable move to suggest that the agent with power to make the cake behave as if it made itself from singularly simple ingredients also has the power to bring those ingredients into existence, especially since they don’t explain their own existence and require an external agent to become a cake in any case.

 

[opusAquinas]

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.

The universe was not randomly created. There are laws governing everything. Physical and moral. Were these laws randomly created?