The Existence of God Arguments: The Big Bang Theory

[Goddd]

There are a number of "official" arguments as to why God exists, 36 of them to be exact. I will be posting them over the next couple of days, mainly with the ones I find the most interesting. There are two sides, the actual argument that God exists, and then the flaws that are pointed out in the argument by non believers.

I'll start it off with one of the most well known, The Big Bang. The 4th argument.

4. The Argument from The Big Bang

1. The Big Bang, according to the best scientific opinion of our day, was the beginning of the physical universe, including not only matter and energy, but space and time and the laws of physics.

2. The universe came to be ex nihilo (from 1).

3. Something outside the universe, including outside its physical laws, must have brought the universe into existence (from 2).

4. Only God could exist outside the universe.

5. God must have been caused the universe to exist (from 3 & 4).

6. God exists.

The Big Bang is based on the observed expansion of the universe, with galaxies rushing away from each other. The implication is that if we run the film of the universe backward from the present, the universe must continuously contract, all the way back to a single point. The theory of the Big Bang is that the universe exploded into existence about 14 billion years ago.

FLAW 1: Cosmologists themselves do not all agree that the Big Bang is a "singularity" — the sudden appearance of space, time, and physical laws from inexplicable nothingness. The Big Bang may represent the lawful emergence of a new universe from a previously existing one. In that case, it would be superfluous to invoke God to explain the emergence of something from nothing.

FLAW 2: The Argument From the Big Bang has all the flaws of The Cosmological Argument — it passes the buck from the mystery of the origin of the universe to the mystery of the origin of God, and it extends the notion of "cause" outside the domain of events covered by natural laws (also known as the universe) where it no longer makes sense.

What are your thoughts? If you don't understand the argument then save yourself from embarrassment and just don't reply.

 

[Akatsuki]

RE: The Existence of God Arguments

I'll be watching this thread to see what people are saying. In interesting in other peoples opinions about creation. Really nice thread you have here @God

 

[Nevermind]

Lawrence Krauss, in his book titled "A Universe From Nothing", details how it is plausible for a universe to be generated from literal nothingness, without using a divine being. The need for a first cause or unmoved mover is thrown out of the window.

 

[Goddd]

Lawrence Krauss, in his book titled "A Universe From Nothing", details how it is plausible for a universe to be generated from literal nothingness, without using a divine being. The need for a first cause or unmoved mover is thrown out of the window.

I thought you would say that, which brings me to the first argument, The Cosmological argument.

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

 

[Nevermind]

I thought you would say that, which brings me to the first argument, The Cosmological argument.

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

Nothing is unstable, and almost always, matter will spontaneously arise from nothing. Nothing, the absence of space and time and matter, could more than likely be the cause of our universe.

Also, both of these arguments are god of the gaps arguments. Just because science doesn't have a 100% certain explanation, god did it. It's an argument from ignorance.

 

[Goddd]

Nothing is unstable, and almost always, matter will spontaneously arise from nothing. Nothing, the absence of space and time and matter, could more than likely be the cause of our universe.

Also, both of these arguments are god of the gaps arguments. Just because science doesn't have a 100% certain explanation, god did it. It's an argument from ignorance.

I don't agree with either side. The entire concept of God is only argued because of the term "beginning". The only reason we as humans think that everything has a beginning is because that is how we are taught. Just because life has a beginning and an end does not justify that the existence of time has a beginning. The concept of time is only a measurement, without something to measure, time does not exist, therefore the universe has always been here. The possibility of the universe to have always existed has the same likelyhood as the universe having a beginning. This is hard to believe because "the beginning" is something that has been argued and fought over since the beginning of human life. Humans are convinced that everything has a beginning, including the universe, this may or may not be true. This would completely eliminate the controversy of Science vs Religion if it were.

 

[Nevermind]

I don't agree with either side. The entire concept of God is only argued because of the term "beginning". The only reason we as humans think that everything has a beginning is because that is how we are taught. Just because life has a beginning and an end does not justify that the existence of time has a beginning. The concept of time is only a measurement, without something to measure, time does not exist, therefore the universe has always been here. The possibility of the universe to have always existed has the same likelyhood as the universe having a beginning. This is hard to believe because "the beginning" is something that has been argued and fought over since the beginning of human life. Humans are convinced that everything has a beginning, including the universe, this may or may not be true. This would completely eliminate the controversy of Science vs Religion if it were.

How would you explain rapid expansion of the universe from a central point?

 

[Goddd]

How would you explain rapid expansion of the universe from a central point?

Perhaps the central point has always existed and didnt start expanding until later. Its just another theory. Personally i believe in God, I'd rather not take the chance of him existing and not believe, then spend eternity in damnation.

 

[Nevermind]

Perhaps the central point has always existed and didnt start expanding until later. Its just another theory. Personally i believe in God, I'd rather not take the chance of him existing and not believe, then spend eternity in damnation.

That's also a fallacy, but I'm not going to argue against you. There's nothing that can possibly change a person of faith's mind.

 

[Hostage]

I believe what is there in front of me, If I believed in God I might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Scientists are the Gods, that's my opinion, sorry if I offend anyone.

 

[Cann!bal]

Perhaps the central point has always existed and didnt start expanding until later. Its just another theory. Personally i believe in God, I'd rather not take the chance of him existing and not believe, then spend eternity in damnation.

"That's a total false dichotomy. Your argument, Pascal's Wager, ignores the possibility of all other beliefs and asserts they are wrong, and that the Christian God, presumably, is truth. It also asserts your God is dumb enough to fall for this save-my-ass insurance plan."