Big Bang Proves God Exists?

Don't forget that Jesus didn't show up at the second coming.

*me: walks into the restaurant at the end of the universe*

*Jesus appears*

Hey guys sorry I'm late.

I think we can logically agree that prophecy is and always has been bull****.

now what is left? There is no modern day presence of any deities, there aren't even any leprechauns. No supernatural stuff to speak of. It is all just in the imagination.

I can understand why people wish so hard for this stuff to be true, because then life wouldn't be as mundane as it is. But wishing does not make it so.

I really don't think life would be any less mundane in the event that these things happened. Things would just be as they should be.

It's like wishing harry potter was real. If you were a fukkking wizard you wouldn't think twice about how cool your magic wand is any more than a musician appreciates how deliciously beautiful he can make his ax sing.

Im a Muslim and believe in 1 omnipotent God and the Quran, I also believe that God was the trigger that created everything in the universe as well as the Universe and everything in it, I don't understand why most people think that most religious people are stupid or something I mean I don't call Atheists or other people with different religious beliefs stupid or treat them as they are dumb.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

Originally Posted by HAPPY MASK MAN

Im a Muslim and believe in 1 omnipotent God and the Quran, I also believe that God was the trigger that created everything in the universe as well as the Universe and everything in it, I don't understand why most people think that most religious people are stupid or something I mean I don't call Atheists or other people with different religious beliefs stupid or treat them as they are dumb.

This is easily answerable. Where's your evidence?

I made it about a third of the way down the page before I gave up trying.

1. Let's look at this Prime Mover argument the OP is using. Here are the two premises he's trying to reconcile:

A. No effect can exist without a cause preceding it.
B. God is uncaused and everything proceeds from him.

Looks like a contradiction to me. Aristotle is the first guy who came up with the whole Prime Mover thing, where something was the first cause and had nothing preceding it. Kant figured that that uncaused effects, if you will, can occur anywhere in the chain of causality and thus destroyed the idea of material determinism, by arguing that the effects that appear to have no cause in the material world come, for the most part, from the thoughts of rational agents. All the specifics of the argument are fuzzy from me not paying much attention in the class I learned about them, but basically determinism is a load of crap.

As far as priests being involved in science for purely scientific reasons, you have to remember that before maybe 1600, everyone who went to a university came out as a lawyer or a priest. And the life of a priest, or perhaps rather a monk, was very well suited to the study of nature: you have to pray so many times a day, and maybe do the odd service, but for the most part, you have few duties and fewer worries. I'd bet most hard science professors would jump at the chance to get into a monastery with near-unlimited funds where they didn't have to deal with all the bull**** that being a professor at a research university entails.

And as for Ockham, I think he was a Benedictine monk, but he was not very well liked during his lifetime. He was a very logically oriented guy, and a lot of his conclusions, for obvious reasons, contradicted some of the Church's teachings.

awww, but you left out Plato. He's my favorite.

Don't forget though that Ockham didn't actually intend for his theory to be used theologically. Kind of interesting how that turned out.

Well, from what I remember, Ockham wasn't a huge fan of the way the Church was run even without his philosophical project.

And if Plato said anything about the whole Prime Mover idea, I never read it. If he did, tell me where. I need to get out of Socrates' death and read more of Plato's dialogues.

The laws, book ten.

Although I haven't actually read it. I'm more familiar with the republic.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

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.

Leibniz would insist you have the horse before the carriage: space couldn't really appear without there first being matter to shape it; in fact, space is nothing more than a human abstraction over the various inter-material relationships of our reality.

In some ways, this isn't so far off our modern intuition: if we're willing make the exceedingly common (yet ultimately nonscientific) extension of the Big Bang theory and arrive at a true singularity then we retain a universe-worth of matter while seemingly loosing space and time to thermodynamic stasis. If we try to differentiate "empty space" from true "nothingness" without invoking at least the idea of matter we run into quite the wall.

In other ways, relative space falls flat on its face. Even in Leibniz's day it was understood that purely relational ideas of space implied that matter experiencing non-inertial motion should be observationally no different from an object at rest or moving with constant velocity. This was a large problem when Newton pointed out that non-inertial motion seemed to generate force and became much larger when Einstein concluded that such motion can be seen to deform the very fabric of reality. Post-Theories of Relativity space is modeled as an extant expression of a larger reality (space-time), distinct from matter and energy.

Now we have an interesting situation. Leibniz's intuition was based on the extreme similarity between our ideas of space and distance. An interesting philosophical question then (and perhaps more pertinent to the original topic) is, given that we might have space without inter-material distance, can we possibly have distance without space?

I know this is backtracking some and slightly off-topic, but let's talk about proving the existence of God for a second. Given all the descriptions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity I've heard, there is no way to prove that there is or is not a god.

However, holy texts make many claims about the actions of their deity in the material world, and those can be tested for and proven or disproven like any other claim. Victor Stenger came up with that idea, and he wrote a book about it called God: The Failed Hypothesis. Guess what his conclusion was.

Like I said, the christian god has an identifying quality that pretty much ensures that it cannot exist by scientific standards.

Other gods however, are not quite so fickle. The ovewhelming amount of supernatual inaction shows us that they aren't there either.

I think it's about as silly to use science to prove religion as it is to use religion to prove science.

They're both completely different.

The big bang theory can help suggest that there is or is not a god, depending on how you look at it. However, I don't think it proves his existence. Especially since part of religion is believing without seeing.

I would expect scientific standards to make the Christian god non existent. They are unrelated. Since religion is not about proof, but spirituality and faith, that doesn't really matter.

The issue here is that the TC claims that since the person who created the theory was also a priest, that it must prove the existence of God.

That is quite simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Anann

The issue here is that the TC claims that since the person who created the theory was also a priest, that it must prove the existence of God.

That is quite simply wrong.

I haven't seen that argument, could you point it out to me?

But if that's the case, being a priest doesn't necessarily prove anything. =/

Did you read opening post? That is what the topic is about.

The mistaken assumption that because someone is a member of the church that they cannot have anything to do with anything secular.

The big bang theory never had anything to do with the existence of god, even so this is what the tc is attempting to claim.

Originally Posted by Anann

Did you read opening post? That is what the topic is about.

I read it, but nowhere did I read "A priest said it so it must be true by virtue of that alone."

It was just some evidence and suggestion.

The mistaken assumption that because someone is a member of the church that they cannot have anything to do with anything secular.

The big bang theory never had anything to do with the existence of god, even so this is what the tc is attempting to claim.

Well, this whole discussion is suggesting that maybe God did have something to do with the big bang. I think. Maybe a more appropriate title would be "Big Bang doesn't prove the nonexistence of God." But who likes double negatives anyway?

Originally Posted by Breeze

Well, this whole discussion is suggesting that maybe God did have something to do with the big bang. I think. Maybe a more appropriate title would be "Big Bang doesn't prove the nonexistence of God." But who likes double negatives anyway?

and indeed, no one is saying that the Big Bang theory does prove the nonexistence of God, both because the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with God and also because proving the nonexistence of something is impossible.

so we're all in agreement that the Big Bang does not prove the nonexistence of God.