Big Bang Proves God Exists?

Originally Posted by Cukeman

big bang is bogus

Actually....another great point we haven't considered.
Lets say that the big bang implies God does exist.
The big bang is most definitely not proven, and can't be proven, since science consists merely on approximations and models.

Originally Posted by juanzup

my question is why do people try to think that the big bang theory is a completely secular idea and that in some cases think that religion has no place in the argument.

Because it largely is?

Regardless of the origin of the idea, the scientific theory that is known as the "Big Bang Theory" is entirely secular.

You are free to make a variation that includes any deity(ies) if your choice, but that would be a different hypothesis.

Lastly, i pose the question how else would have the elements that contributed to this event be present in the first place??

Well, matter is created out of literally nothing all the time. Every instant of every day.

Not much, but it's observable with the right experiments.


Further, since we don't, in fact, know exactly what did cause the big bang, we can't even guess as to what would be required for it to happen. It's like you seeing a house turn into a pink elephant. There's no way to actually guess what just happened nor why.

Finally, the laws of physics and logic would be created by the big bang and, as such, presumably don't apply before it.

Originally Posted by Forte

I agree. Also, time is an invention of man.

Not true, and I really want to know where people get this idea.

Measurement of time isn't even an invention of man (plants do it, as do almost all animals.)

The specific units we use to measure time are, I suppose, inventions of man (if one can call days and years human inventions.) but then, so are the units we use to measure distance.


But time itself is very real. I could not type this post unless I had time to type it in. If there was no time then there would be one, unchanging, instant. The fact that things change is evidence that time exists.

Now, what, exactly, time is cannot be answered. Same as distance. But since time and space are inexorably linked this is not surprising. (Plus, of course, if time isn't real than neither is space.)

Originally Posted by juanzup

God is uncaused, meaning he was there from the start, hence proving that time is construed by humans because eternity is outside of time.

What?

Alright, if God is uncaused, then why can't the big bang?

And how does God being uncaused prove time does not exist?

Originally Posted by 3heartchallenge

Also, on another note.
I don't get why people try to prove God exists. In my point of view, God is un-provable (if that's a word) and that's the whole point in faith. Wouldn't faith loose all it's meaning if God could be proven?

Ah, strong agnosticism. (or perhaps strong atheism.)

However, God need not necessarily be unprovable. If a deity is omnipotent then that deity could, by definition, prove to any standard, that it exists.

Originally Posted by 3heartchallenge

Actually....another great point we haven't considered.
Lets say that the big bang implies God does exist.
The big bang is most definitely not proven, and can't be proven, since science consists merely on approximations and models.

big bang is big

Er, no. The Big Bang is proven, in the same way that Einsteinian Gravity is proven, or that the idea that continents move is proven.

Science can draw conclusions without perfectly re-creating a specific event, just like detectives can figure out how someone was killed by looking at a crime scene, rather than creating perfect copies of the place, time, murder, and victim and watching what happens.

Originally Posted by Andross

That doesn't really make any sense.

If it did make sense to you, you'd be God yourself.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

If God can be uncaused, why can't the Universe?

Because that's not what the Bible says. The Bible says God is uncaused and that the Universe was created by God, but in this case we're dealing with a matter of beliefs. I believe the Bible. It's accurate in countless ways such as involving real places and people, and has been around for thousands of years, having been written when those events actually took place. Alternatives such as evolution were just invented out of nowhere by people in the last few hundred years and talk about spontaneous things that happened billions of years ago that aren't even recorded to know for sure.

ahh, thanks for clearing that up, John.

My next question would be concerning matter appearing out of "nothing".

Is it really nothing or are there prerequisites such as non-matter things...er perhaps the word I'm looking for is empty space or a wavelength....

regardless, matter couldn't really appear without there first being space in which to appear, I would presume.

Sorry if I'm too far off topic, I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by John

Ah, strong agnosticism. (or perhaps strong atheism.)

However, God need not necessarily be unprovable. If a deity is omnipotent then that deity could, by definition, prove to any standard, that it exists.

My only problem with that statement is that he couldn't necessarily prove it to the human standard as one of the fundamental natures of being human is that by our own limited design, we are unable to perceive proof of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

To be able to do so would require a significant change in our frame of reference--a change that would arguably push us beyond the current definition of what it is to be human.

At first glance that might seem contradicting to the omnipotent nature of god, but if it is his own rules he's not breaking than he's still omnipotent.

It's like asking him to draw a square triangle. It's not a valid task to request because they are inherently logical contradictions that are never mutually inclusive. Much the same as asking one to simultaneously run backwards and forwards at the same time without duplicating or ripping ones body in half or other such nonsense.

Originally Posted by John

Ah, strong agnosticism. (or perhaps strong atheism.)

However, God need not necessarily be unprovable. If a deity is omnipotent then that deity could, by definition, prove to any standard, that it exists.

(Or perhaps argument for the sake of argument)
Well.. yes, if the deity wanted to prove itself to the world, then it certainly could. However, without it intervening, there's nothing, in my humble opinion, that can be done to prove it.

Originally Posted by John

Er, no. The Big Bang is proven, in the same way that Einsteinian Gravity is proven, or that the idea that continents move is proven.

Science can draw conclusions without perfectly re-creating a specific event, just like detectives can figure out how someone was killed by looking at a crime scene, rather than creating perfect copies of the place, time, murder, and victim and watching what happens.

I would have definitely have said a couple centuries ago that Newton's Laws were proven. We now know they are merely approximations and Einstein's equations provide a better approximation. And still, Einstein's equations break down when dealing with tiny masses, just like quantum breaks down when dealing with huge masses or high speeds.
We need only one observation/experiment to completely disprove The big bang/Einstenian Gravity/Movement of continents, and not 1000 observations in agreement completely prove it.
Yes, the conclusion science draws are perfectly acceptable and highly useful to deal with the phenomenon, but can never be considered the actual truth. In the same way with a crime scene, a single piece of evidence could revel the murderer to have been someone else entirely.
It is not that science is flawed, quite the contrary, it is how we can learn through science. Every step takes us closer to understanding, and allows us to make better predictions.
Ever heard of the Flat Earth Society (not the modern ones though). I believe non exist anymore, but their point of view was "never believe anything", for all we know, earth COULD be flat. It is simply a way to keep a reminder never to take anything for granted. The most obvious thing to us, could be very far away from the truth.

If a theory can't be dis-proven, it isn't even considered science (by most standards).

Gods need not be omnipotent by definition.

I explained this in posts that were deleted for no reason.

You listed an umbrella term--or rather a more inclusive definition--of "god" and "deity" respectively and I proceeded to explain why such broad definitions are not always pertinent even though they may be more practical. Although I thought it was on another thread.

Those are the only criteria necessary for godhood.

All gods fit said criteria. Any claim of godhood would be valid if it met the criteria. A claim to be a specific god, would require further identifying values.

Claim to be Anubis would require having the head of a jackal for instance.

haha, indeed.

I'm curious, what would be your required criteria for the gods of the west then?

Puncture wounds perhaps?

what gods of the west?

the puncture wounds reference should be a dead giveaway.

but lets say the nordic one.

A big hammer that casts lightning at things?

christian god doesn't exist. that is one of its identifying qualities.

thor is just one of the nordic gods, and I think he wasn't a full god.

Your crass commentary is quite endearing but I think it would be more accurate to say that he is both transcendent and immanent.

but what is the difference between a god and a not-full-god?

christian god is intangible and unknowable. You would need to really overreach to say that isn't synonymous with "non existent".

Thor was part human or something.

only in certain parts of the trinity does this hold true, not for all three aspects.

ahh so thor is like Hercules then.

Yea, sort of.

The only part claimed to be knowable is the son, who is also claimed to be human, and therefore not a god.

Thor isn't entirely like Hercules, he's the offspring of a god and a giantess, not a god and a human. So, he outranks Hercules and Jesus, but comes in slightly lower than Yahweh and Shiva.

EDIT: lol, godranks

"I'm more godly than you are!"

"Yeah, well my dad has more thunderbolts than your dad!"

Originally Posted by Anann

Yea, sort of.

The only part claimed to be knowable is the son, who is also claimed to be human, and therefore not a god.

If you discredit the miracles and the resurrection--key aspects of the faith--then yes.

Christians would tell you that the holy spirit is knowable, but this aspect of christianity often involves heavy doses of mysticism which isn't near as popular in America due to it being more synonymous with eastern religions.

How ironic, considering the rampant religiousness you find in america, and nowhere else.

Miracles are a bit ridiculous, given that none have occured in actual recorded history.

You also have to believe that crap like demons and such exist, something else that has no presence in history.

Then you also have to hold on to the multitude of prophecies that have fallen apart due to a lack of foresight on the authors part.

Originally Posted by Anann

How ironic, considering the rampant religiousness you find in america, and nowhere else.

Miracles are a bit ridiculous, given that none have occured in actual recorded history.

You also have to believe that crap like demons and such exist, something else that has no presence in history.

Then you also have to hold on to the multitude of prophecies that have fallen apart due to a lack of foresight on the authors part.

Well, not so say that aspect of the faith is completely dead. There are still plenty of healing sessions and speaking in tongue denominations (jesus camp for example). but for the most part yes.

not to mention the legends of the Stigmata in the Catholic faith and the crying marble statues.

The prophesies have been interpreted in several ways, either due to the fine aspects of the original language being lost or overly symbolic declamatory statements being wide open for interpretation.

The OT prophesies concerning the Jewish messiah are the ones that are most nit-picked over between the Jews and the Christians, for obvious reasons.