Big Bang Proves God Exists?

Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest, was the first to propose the hypothesis of the primeval atom, what is now known as the Big Bang theory. from the very start it was religion, specifically those within the catholic church, that came up with the idea of the creation of the universe and how it essentially happened.

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.

Also whether this could be essentially enough proof to show that that God's handiwork created the universe through this event?

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

errr, occam's razor?

the universe is eternal and has no beginning, thus time has no beginning, thus there was no "first place" of which you question

^one plausible retort to your last question.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

the universe is eternal and has no beginning, thus time has no beginning, thus there was no "first place" of which you question

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

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

errr, occam's razor?

the universe is eternal and has no beginning, thus time has no beginning, thus there was no "first place" of which you question

^one plausible retort to your last question.

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

Originally Posted by juanzup

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

But then what caused God?

Originally Posted by juanzup

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

Your use of the word causer (if it is a legimate word) makes me question the rest of your post.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

But then what caused God?

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

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.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

errr, occam's razor?

the universe is eternal and has no beginning, thus time has no beginning, thus there was no "first place" of which you question

^one plausible retort to your last question.

That is however, going against the point of the question since the big bang implies a start in time, and a "first place".

Now, the creation of the elements have a scientific reason as to how they were created. In few words, when the big bang happened, lets consider protons and electrons and neutrons were created, by laws of physics, they attracted and form hydrogen, maybe even helium and a few other light elements. through gravity they clumped up and formed suns, where by it's heat and pressure heavier elements were created.
Now, you may say, but where did the electrons, protons, and neutrons come from.

Ah! that's the beauty of science. We keep learning and can find a reason for (almost) everything, learning that our preview reasons were wrong or inaccurate.

As to why people think it is a secular idea? Well, I'm sure many persons don't, and I'm sure religion says TBB is in complete agreement with religion. People without religious beliefs however, can also point out that since the theory is explainable, then no God is necessary.

Now, just to make another point.
You state Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose this hypothesis, however, a hypothesis can't be considered a new step in understanding until experiment and observation say it's accurate.
I could say that the universe started from the banging of two particles that existed eternally, or that the universe always existed, but it grows ever smaller back in time, however, everything in it is scaled thus no difference except for things being farther apart by the second can be noticed.
I can claim anything I want, and perhaps eventually, the TBBT will be crushed and a model i had thought about turns to be the newly accepted theory.
That's what I consider the main difference between science and religion. Religions appears to know everything, while science claims to know nothing. Every advance in science is just perhaps a step closer to the true, but can never reach it. Thus, always leaving place for more knowledge.

EDIT: sorry for my nonsense talk about the elements, I re-read your question and was not what you were asking.
Well, what's the difference in considering the elements that contributed to have been eternal, or considering a God created them and God is eternal? Also, there are many theories that need not a first place (multiverse theory for example). Again, that's what I love about science, attempting to give intelligent reasons to things that seem impossible, instead of saying "well, how did THAT happen then.... that's proof God exists", science will say "Well, how did THAT happen then?... let's find out"

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.

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

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?

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?

If God existed and people knew that God existed, I'd assume they would end up being far more religious due to fear of being cast in to hell.

Knowledge has far more meaning than blind faith; it is true that the existance of God can't be proven, of course.

Originally Posted by Andross

If people knew that God existsed, I'd assume they would end up being far more religious due to fear of being cast in to hell.

Knowledge has far more meaning than blind faith; it is true that the existance of God can't be proven, however.

But if God want's us to know it's real, wouldn't it make it so that each and every one of us knew it? Meaning that, for whatever reason, if God is real, it prefers we believe rather than know. (I can't know this is true, but it's what makes logical sense)
And if Religion was proven, wouldn't it become law, rather than religion, and could a new set of religions arise that question the current , now law?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

But then what caused God?

I take the view of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed...I find it could be a similar concept to God... =/

EDIT:

On the topic I agree with 3heartchallenge

Also it isn't a religious theory, and never was. You should not assume because someone is a priest that all of their actions are religiously motivated.

so that sort of breaks the spine of this topic.

Also doesn't prove god exists, because there is more than one invented god, and because of this, it could have been Odin. Or Xάος. Or Atum. Or Ormazd.
It only suggests a creator, and nothing more. This creator may well have died in the act or because of the act of creation.

It in no way suggests the constant presence of a deity.

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.

Then why go one step further and not say that the Universe is uncaused, meaning it was there from the start?

Originally Posted by fratey

Then why go one step further and not say that the Universe is uncaused, meaning it was there from the start?

Exactly. I mean, this is not to say that God definitely doesn't exist. It just means that it can't be proven, and that if you're trying to be rational and scientific about it, then there's no reason to create a assume that he does, when assuming he doesn't is the simpler explanation.

@ annan, did your posts get deleted again?

anywho...

Originally Posted by annan

Also it isn't a religious theory, and never was. You should not assume because someone is a priest that all of their actions are religiously motivated.

so that sort of breaks the spine of this topic.

good point. occam himself was a priest. now look how his theory is being used, even in my first post in this thread.

Originally Posted by 3heartschallenge

That is however, going against the point of the question since the big bang implies a start in time, and a "first place".

If i understand things correctly, the big bang theory does not attempt to explain how matter got there in the first place, just that it was all concentrated in one singularity and exploded outwards. Thus if the matter was always there then there was always time.

however if i'm mistaken feel free to correct me.

Originally Posted by 3heartschallenge

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?

Originally Posted by me

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for a couple of days: How much empirical evidence would be required to prove the existence of God? Could God Himself prove His own existence to us?

Let's start with something lesser than God. Let's say I have an infinitely long wooden pole. Could I prove to you that this pole actually exists? Well, I could show it to you and say "look, this pole is infinitely long" - but you could only ever see part of it, not the entire pole. It would stretch in both directions as far as your eyes can see, but that wouldn't be proof that it is infinitely long. You could reply to me saying "this pole isn't infinite; it's just very long". How could I persuade you otherwise? I could take you on a trip in one direction along the pole and show you that it doesn't end - but you could always say "all I've seen so far is that this pole is at least X kilometres long; I have no reason to believe it goes on forever". The fact is, I could never conclusively prove to you that the pole is infinite. To do so would require traveling along it for an infinite amount of time.

What does this example show? That if you want to prove infinity through empirical evidence, you require an infinite amount of evidence.

Now let's go back to God and let's assume God decides to prove His existence to us. He appears out of thin air in front of the United Nations and proclaims to the leaders of the world, "I am God". Someone from the audience shouts, "No you're not! You're just an angel, or an alien! If you're God, prove it!". So God turns the walls of the United Nations building into water - while keeping them in their solid shape - and creates a floating dinosaur in the air. The same person from the audience shouts "Optical illusion!". God lets the walls of water fall and splash on the ground and brings the dinosaur low enough for people to touch it. The skeptic shouts again "All that requires is teleportation and force fields. A reasonably advanced alien civilization could do it." In response, God parts the Atlantic Ocean and summons up a tall mountain right off the coast of New York. The skeptic stands his ground. "Force fields again, and some geological control. Not unexpected for aliens able to travel between stars." Having had enough of this, God turns the Sun red, breaks it in two different stars, blocks them both out with total solar eclipses - revealing the night sky - and begins moving around the stars of the Milky Way. At a wave of His hand, three supernovas go off simultaneously. "DO YOU BELIEVE ME NOW?", He thunders. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", comes the reply.

Indeed, what has God proven with His demonstration? That He is extremely powerful. But He has not proven that He is all-powerful. Omnipotence - infinite power - requires infinite evidence. To prove that He can do anything, God would have to do everything. The same holds true if God tried to prove His existence through omniscience. He could reveal intimate knowledge of every little detail of the personal lives of every person in the audience, but that would not be enough to prove that He knows everything. Angels and aliens could have great knowledge and great power too.

In brief, since "God" is defined as a being with certain infinite attributes - such as omnipotence, omniscience, etc. - proving His existence would require an infinite amount of evidence. Thus, proving the existence of God to the human mind is and always will be impossible, even if God exists and even if He wanted us to prove His existence. Given this, it makes no sense whatsoever to ask for evidence for the existence of God. When someone says "prove to me that God exists", he is asking the impossible - much like saying "I want to see an infinitely long wooden pole".

I only posted the one post, and I think if anyone actually read it, we could end this silly debate right now.

The answer is no, after all.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

If i understand things correctly, the big bang theory does not attempt to explain how matter got there in the first place, just that it was all concentrated in one singularity and exploded outwards. Thus if the matter was always there then there was always time.

however if i'm mistaken feel free to correct me.

Well... as the BBT does not try to explain anything before it, implying it always existed is an explanation. I could say with the same validity that time was created with the bang, or that the singularity simply popped into existence and then banged. I am, however, just trying to avoid the fact that, for the intents of this argument, it is the most valid assumption.

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

Tiny letters

I wasn't even going to read this because of the tiny font, however, I'm glad I did. It is a great argument and I'd think it would bring to and end this discussion (or at least the main point in this), as it proves god can't be proven.... If not made utterly useless by Anann's post. (designer, not deity)