This has probably been asked before, but..

liah

...I can't find it.

A common argument against the big bang theory and various other similar theories that Christians often present in favour of God is the idea that it's incredibly hard to believe that the universe just popped into existence from absolutely nothing.

This begs the question: where did God come from? And if your answer is "God has just always existed, for eternity" then why is it impossible for you to believe that the universe could have done the same?

Infinity and eternity and the beginnings of the universe are things that will forever be beyond human comprehension, I think. I just fail to see how it's a valid argument to think that the universe coming into existence randomly, or having just "always been," is hard to believe, but a God coming into existence randomly, or having just "always been," isn't.

Can someone clear this up for me? I don't know how it works, because in my view it's the same thing, but I'm probably missing something vital, which is why I'm asking you.

O'Coonassa

liah wrote: »

This begs the question: where did God come from? And if your answer is "God has just always existed, for eternity" then why is it impossible for you to believe that the universe could have done the same?

But the universe very clearly has not always existed, or do you think it has?

Overblood

O'Coonassa wrote: »

But the universe very clearly has not always existed, or do you think it has?

I think she may be talking about whatever natural forces caused our universe to be, and the forces that caused that force to be and so on. This universe hasn't been around forever, but whatever caused it to be, may have been around forever.

O'Coonassa

Overblood wrote: »

This universe hasn't been around forever, but whatever caused it to be, may have been around forever.

Yes indeed, some people know It as the unbegotten God

Something had to exist first.

liah

Yeah, that's what I meant, Overblood.. suppose I could've worded it better, never was good with words though! :P

wolfsbane

liah wrote: »

...I can't find it.

A common argument against the big bang theory and various other similar theories that Christians often present in favour of God is the idea that it's incredibly hard to believe that the universe just popped into existence from absolutely nothing.

This begs the question: where did God come from? And if your answer is "God has just always existed, for eternity" then why is it impossible for you to believe that the universe could have done the same?

Infinity and eternity and the beginnings of the universe are things that will forever be beyond human comprehension, I think. I just fail to see how it's a valid argument to think that the universe coming into existence randomly, or having just "always been," is hard to believe, but a God coming into existence randomly, or having just "always been," isn't.

Can someone clear this up for me? I don't know how it works, because in my view it's the same thing, but I'm probably missing something vital, which is why I'm asking you.

I think the difference is in the nature of the two things, Matter and God. God is something other than matter: spirit. The idea that such a Spirit is eternal is coherent.

But matter (I include energy in this) seems to operate on laws that demand an eventual run-down of the universe. Perhaps we could imagine a universe that is eternal, but not one that is eternally active. Which would mean our present condition is virtually impossible in an eternal universe.

It would be a further amazing coincidence to add to all the others that are needed for life on earth.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

I think she may be talking about whatever natural forces caused our universe to be, and the forces that caused that force to be and so on. This universe hasn't been around forever, but whatever caused it to be, may have been around forever.

In Christian belief there is a first cause behind everything we see. That first cause is not something natural or created, but is supernatural. We call that supernatural first cause God.

The atheist must somehow believe (a) that matter came into being spontaneously out of nothing, or (b) that something natural always existed and had no beginning. I personally find both those positions to be utterly implausible and unbelievable.

The question as to who created God is, by definition, redundant because He is supernatural and therefore above naturalistic explanations.

For the atheist, however, who denies the supernatural, there remains the unanswered question of where anything came from in the first place.

Gurgle

liah wrote: »

A common argument against the big bang theory and various other similar theories that Christians often present in favour of God is the idea that it's incredibly hard to believe that the universe just popped into existence from absolutely nothing.

Ah, but thats just the primary school / creationist interpretation of the big bang theory: simplified to the point of being meaningless.

There are no definitive answers to the origin of the universe, numerous theories but none conclusively proven.

What we're pretty sure about:
1) All the matter* in our "universe" came from one place and exploded outwards
2) This happened 13.6ish billion years ago
3) The energies and velocities involved are way beyond anything we can reproduce in an attempt to figure out what happened.

AFAIK, those big brains doing the maths are fairly confident that prior to the big bang, that same matter collapsed into that place due to gravity/momentum/entropy/something else.

One theory (which I like) is that time is round; enough matter* for a universe will eventually be heaped up in one place again, from whence it will all explode again.

Another theory (which I find childish) is that some omnipotent being who has existed forever decided to make a universe specially for his protegès to live in.

PDN wrote:

The atheist must somehow believe (a) that matter came into being spontaneously out of nothing, or (b) that something natural always existed and had no beginning

or c) We don't have the means to figure out the answers yet.

*by matter, I mean mass/energy (they're the same thing in different forms)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The atheist must somehow believe (a) that matter came into being spontaneously out of nothing, or (b) that something natural always existed and had no beginning. I personally find both those positions to be utterly implausible and unbelievable.

Implausible and unbelievable you may indeed find it, but such spontaneous ex-nihilo creation is observed all the time in particle accelerators -- it's one of the reasons that researchers build these machines.

PDN wrote: »

The question as to who created God is, by definition, redundant because He is supernatural and therefore above naturalistic explanations.

Handwaving the problem away does not solve the problem.

And since we've been through this a few times in the past, it's hardly worth rehashing the debate again, but in a debate, you certainly can't permit yourself the luxury of saying that the logic that you require of others does not, by definition, apply to yourself.

PDN wrote: »

For the atheist, however, who denies the supernatural, there remains the unanswered question of where anything came from in the first place.

Well, the question has been answered to an acceptable (if not definitive) degree of certainty, and without needing to invoke magic answers.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

in a debate, you certainly can't permit yourself the luxury of saying that the logic that you require of others does not, by definition, apply to yourself.

I can, and I just did. It is perfectly logical for a Christian, who believes in the supernatural, to appeal to the supernatural. It is also illogical for an atheist, who does not believe in the supernatural, to appeal to the supernatural.

liah

Cheers for the answers guys, clears things up a little

Gurgle

PDN wrote: »

I can, and I just did. It is perfectly logical for a Christian, who believes in the supernatural, to appeal to the supernatural. It is also illogical for an atheist, who does not believe in the supernatural, to appeal to the supernatural.

True, but conversely the Christian must believe that all the answers are available if he prays hard enough while the athiest can allow science the luxory of answering "we don't know yet".

And yet no Christian has come up with a plausible answer as to why God bothered making the rest of the universe.

wolfsbane

Gurgle wrote: »

True, but conversely the Christian must believe that all the answers are available if he prays hard enough while the athiest can allow science the luxory of answering "we don't know yet".

And yet no Christian has come up with a plausible answer as to why God bothered making the rest of the universe.

I think it perfectly plausible to say God created the rest of the universe to display His glory and as a witness to man:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead. Romans 1:20a

Psalm 8:1 O LORD, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth,
Who have set Your glory above the heavens!

2 Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,
Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.

3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?

Deuteronomy 4:19 And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage.

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Mickeroo

The fact that the universe is expanding,background radiaton etc supports the big bang, whether the big bang was caused by a god or not we may never know. To me the most plausible explanation is that the universe will eventually contract and big bang all over again and that it has done this many many times.



Supernatural is a human concept, if something exists it is by default natural.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

robindch wrote:

in a debate, you certainly can't permit yourself the luxury of saying that the logic that you require of others does not, by definition, apply to yourself.

I can, and I just did.

Yes, you can certainly claim it, but only if you don't want to be taken seriously.

At this point, I was going to write a simple logical rebuttal of this splendidly nonsensical position, but it's pointless since you're most likely to reply -- again -- that logic simply doesn't apply to your point of view.

I can't imagine any better example of the immensely enjoyable silliness of religion than this intellectual blancmange.

PDN

Gurgle wrote: »

True, but conversely the Christian must believe that all the answers are available if he prays hard enough while the athiest can allow science the luxory of answering "we don't know yet".

Nonsense. I, or any other Christian, can be perfectly content to say that there's lots of stuff we don't know yet.

robindch wrote:

Yes, you can certainly claim it, but only if you don't want to be taken seriously.

At this point, I was going to write a simple logical rebuttal of this splendidly nonsensical position, but it's pointless since you're most likely to reply -- again -- that logic simply doesn't apply to your point of view.

I can't imagine any better example of the immensely enjoyable silliness of religion than this intellectual blancmange.

It would be difficult for me to say again something that I haven't said for a first time. What I said was that the same logic does not apply - since the believer can appeal to the supernatural whereas the unbeliever can't. That is totally different from arguing that no logic applies (but I suspect you're actually smart enough to be able to spot that difference for yourself and are just playing silly beggars).

BTW, you guys continually thanking one another's posts doesn't actually make any of them more convincing - but it is an interesting demonstration of group solidarity.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

I can, and I just did. It is perfectly logical for a Christian, who believes in the supernatural, to appeal to the supernatural. It is also illogical for an atheist, who does not believe in the supernatural, to appeal to the supernatural.

I'm not sure its necessarily true that an atheist cannot 'believe' in the supernatural.

Merriam-Webster (supernatural) wrote:

1 of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2 departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

Since anything pre big bang is beyond the visible observable universe and the laws of nature only come into play post big bang, it seems consistent (to me anyway) to invoke the supernatural for anything pre big bang.
Come to think of it, isn't anything pre big bang (if such a thing existed), by definition, supernatural?

AtomicHorror

Mickeroo wrote: »

The fact that the universe is expanding,background radiaton etc supports the big bang, whether the big bang was caused by a god or not we may never know. To me the most plausible explanation is that the universe will eventually contract and big bang all over again and that it has done this many many times.

Doesn't appear likely. Inflation is accelerating, innit? That's why there's all the hoo-hah and chin stroking over dark energy and the like.

Aside from that, what Gurgle said. Big Bang = origin of observable universe, rather than the origin of everything specifically. Known to be about 14 billion years ago, plus or minus 1 billion years depending on some constants not pinned down firmly (or so I understand).

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not sure its necessarily true that an atheist cannot 'believe' in the supernatural.

Since anything pre big bang is beyond the visible observable universe and the laws of nature only come into play post big bang, it seems consistent (to me anyway) to invoke the supernatural for anything pre big bang.
Come to think of it, isn't anything pre big bang (if such a thing existed), by definition, supernatural?

So you believe in something that is supernatural, that is eternal, and was responsible for everything visible that we can see? OK, sounds good to me. Deism isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Mickeroo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Doesn't appear likely. Inflation is accelerating, innit? That's why there's all the hoo-hah and chin stroking over dark energy and the like.

Really? Thats fascinating and raises lots of new questions. You got any links to articles r anything?( nothing too jargony )

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Aside from that, what Gurgle said. Big Bang = origin of observable universe, rather than the origin of everything specifically. Known to be about 14 billion years ago, plus or minus 1 billion years depending on some constants not pinned down firmly (or so I understand).

I freely admit there could be heaps of different universes out there

The thought the big bang only formed our part of this universe never occured to me.

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

BTW, you guys continually thanking one another's posts doesn't actually make any of them more convincing - but it is an interesting demonstration of group solidarity.

Annoying isn't it? :pac:

liah

PDN wrote: »

BTW, you guys continually thanking one another's posts doesn't actually make any of them more convincing - but it is an interesting demonstration of group solidarity.

My my, aren't you annoyed by petty things.

I thank people's posts because they tend to say things better than I do, or they bring up something I hadn't thought of before-- thanking isn't "ganging up," it's simply a show of agreement or a literal thanks for bringing something to light. Nothing to get all uppity or defensive about tbh.

I thank a ridiculous amount of posts, it's never a dig at anyone.

AtomicHorror

Mickeroo wrote: »

Really? Thats fascinating and raises lots of new questions. You got any links to articles r anything?( nothing too jargony )

ScienceBlogs provides.

Mickeroo wrote: »

I freely admit there could be heaps of different universes out there

The thought the big bang only formed our part of this universe never occured to me.

The one we have is mind-bendingly huge in space and time as it is.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

BTW, you guys continually thanking one another's posts doesn't actually make any of them more convincing - but it is an interesting demonstration of group solidarity.

Steady on, it's just a mark of agreement without making a post. Nobody's expecting you to accept anything on majority opinion.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

So you believe in something that is supernatural, that is eternal, and was responsible for everything visible that we can see? OK, sounds good to me. Deism isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

Hold on to your horses. I didn't say any of this.
Where did you get eternal from? Where did I say that this proposed supernatural force was a deity?

Certainly what happened at the big bang is responsible for everything visible that we can see. But i'm not praying to the big bang.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It would be difficult for me to say again something that I haven't said for a first time. What I said was that the same logic does not apply - since the believer can appeal to the supernatural whereas the unbeliever can't. That is totally different from arguing that no logic applies (but I suspect you're actually smart enough to be able to spot that difference for yourself and are just playing silly beggars).

Since the manner of your appeal to the supernatural is an inherently illogical position -- as I mentioned I was going to explain in the previous post, but decided not to -- logic itself and the "same logic" are the same thing.

Logic, unlike religion, isn't something that one simply defines for oneself to make difficult questions go away.

PDN wrote: »

BTW, you guys continually thanking one another's posts doesn't actually make any of them more convincing

Awwww... diddums is feeling left out! I'll try to thank you more often in future!

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

Deism isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

lol other than agnosticism it's the only logical choice IMO

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Since the manner of your appeal to the supernatural is an inherently illogical position -- as I mentioned I was going to explain in the previous post, but decided not to -- logic itself and the "same logic" are the same thing.

Logic, unlike religion, isn't something that one simply defines for oneself to make difficult questions go away.

I think you have defined logic to suit yourself. You decide that an appeal to the supernatural is a priori illogical, then you use your definition of logic to argue against a supernatural Being (God). Then you dismiss others as illogical because they aren't convinced by your circular reasoning.

liah wrote:

My my, aren't you annoyed by petty things.

Amused rather than annoyed. I thought you and Overblood had rather a touching thing going with the mutual back-slapping.

But if it suits your stereotype to think of me as annoyed or angry then that's fine. After all, this is the internet where nobody is what they seem. Maybe I'm not an overweight grey-headed church pastor at all, but rather a gorgeous supermodel.

liah

PDN wrote: »

I thought you and Overblood had rather a touching thing going with the mutual back-slapping.

But if it suits your stereotype to think of me as annoyed or angry then that's fine. After all, this is the internet where nobody is what they seem. Maybe I'm not an overweight grey-headed church pastor at all, but rather a gorgeous supermodel.

I was thanking him for clearing up what I meant because it saved me the trouble, how's that a back-slapping? And I don't think he's thanked me once, so.. not sure what you're referring to on this one.

I'm not thinking of any stereotype. Just a casual observation, really, I don't judge.

Cool Mo D

PDN wrote: »

I
The atheist must somehow believe (a) that matter came into being spontaneously out of nothing, or (b) that something natural always existed and had no beginning. I personally find both those positions to be utterly implausible and unbelievable.

You seem to misunderstand the scientific view of the big bang. The theory is that time itself was created at the big bang, so there was no before. The Universe has been here forever, since it was created when time itself was created - "before" the universe was created does not exist.

Also, since the laws of physics were also created at the big bang, it is supposed to be fundamentally unknowable by what mechanism the big bang began.

Of course, this could all be out the window with a better theory in 50 years time.

All the concepts you use in your arguments - the concepts of time, something vs. nothing and cause and effect are properties of our own universe. It is not meaningful to say that the universe came out of "nothing" when the very concept of nothingness may not be meaningful outside of our universe.

You also say that God could pre-exist the universe as he is supernatural, rather that natural. Since the whole concept of naturalness was created with the universe, isn't this meaningless? How does a supernatural being come to exist? Is this a fundamentally unknowable thing to humans? Because I don't see how that idea has more explanatory power than the big bang, you are simply shifting the unknowable part from the creation of the universe to the supernatural permanence of god.

PDN

Cool Mo D wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand the scientific view of the big bang. The theory is that time itself was created at the big bang, so there was no before. The Universe has been here forever, since it was created when time itself was created - "before" the universe was created does not exist.

Also, since the laws of physics were also created at the big bang, it is supposed to be fundamentally unknowable by what mechanism the big bang began.

Of course, this could all be out the window with a better theory in 50 years time.

All the concepts you use in your arguments - the concepts of time, something vs. nothing and cause and effect are properties of our own universe. It is not meaningful to say that the universe came out of "nothing" when the very concept of nothingness may not be meaningful outside of our universe.

You also say that God could pre-exist the universe as he is supernatural, rather that natural. Since the whole concept of naturalness was created with the universe, isn't this meaningless? How does a supernatural being come to exist? Is this a fundamentally unknowable thing to humans? Because I don't see how that idea has more explanatory power than the big bang, you are simply shifting the unknowable part from the creation of the universe to the supernatural permanence of god.

So the universe just spontaneously popped into being out of nothing?

While I admire your faith in believing that, I'm afraid I cannot share it.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

So the universe just spontaneously popped into being out of nothing?

No, that's not what anyone is saying. If time itself came into existence at the big bang then the universe didn't pop into existence from nothing. For it to have come from something (including nothing) there would need to have been a time prior to the big bang. It appears there was not. Does that make sense?

Now, it is conceivable that there was something (or nothing) outside of the big bang in some manner other than the temporal sense, but since causality as we understand it requires time to happen within, I think it's rather beyond us at present to hypothesise whether something might have "caused" the big bang. Assuming we could find room for such a cause in the theory, it'd be logically questionable to insert god into the gap.

PDN wrote: »

While I admire your faith in believing that, I'm afraid I cannot share it.

Well the bits about time and causality are rather horribly non-intuitive (our brains aren't really set up for thinking in these terms) but that's what the evidence seems to be showing us. Certainly the origin of all observable matter at a single point roughly 14 billion years ago is not a question of faith. That's a rather more intuitive point, and very much demonstrably true.

Seaneh

my understanding of the big bang is this.

there was an infinately dense molecule that exploded with an immerueable force and that caused the beginning of time.

Now even if it's a expand/retract universe and it's happened 734,976,231,092 times and this is the nth beginning of time, there has to be a starting point because.

a) Matter (energy/mass) cannot be created destoryed only changed and
b) nothing can happen of itself, there has to be a catalyst, cause and effect.

Even if you don't believe in the Jeudo-Chrsitianic view of a creator or whatever, you have to admit it's as possible that something caused the beginning of time (this "time") than the impossibility that Matter (energy/mass) came from nowhere and caused something of unobservable force without a catalyst.


I believe that the universe is roughly 14billion years old by the way.

I believe that humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years.

I also believe in God, I believe in Christ and I don't see how any of these belifes have to be exclusive of eachother as most athiests seem to believe.

I also think it's hilarious how Athiests will use a piece of scripture to try and trip up a christian in debate and then turn around and tell the same chirsitan that scripture cant be trusted/isnt accurate/aplicable in the same debate when it suits the christians arguement.

Last part was OT but worth throwing out there.

Lovethinking

In answer to the original question ... I believe it is valid to say that as an isolated question, the infinite existence of God and a Big Bang that resulted accidentally in the formation of the universe are relatively equally mind boggling.

Hence, debating on that point alone would be fruitless.

perhaps its a mixture of the two?

nevertheless, a discussion of this subject seldom takes place without, some of the ones who believe that God did it, calling into question the morals of those who don't.....
and the ones who believe in the whole Big Bang to Evolution theory, making "Gufaww" noises at those who are "obviously" not intelligent enough to see the king's new clothes... (oops! I may have just revealed my own bias there.. oh well)

We should build on what we know and try to figure out what we don't.... but is it not pointless to build upon a theory before it is verified?

The Big Bang has not been verified scientifically, neither has evolution.
Neither has the "infinite" existence of God.

But, the existence of God is verifiable through cause and effect... this is something to build upon

AtomicHorror

Seaneh wrote: »

my understanding of the big bang is this.

there was an infinately dense molecule that exploded with an immerueable force and that caused the beginning of time.

No, despite it's name the Big Bang wasn't an explosion as such. Spacetime itself rapidly expanded, so there wasn't any space for the universe to explode into. It was also not an "infinitely small molecule", in fact we can't be sure what existed at time zero, but in the earliest moment we can reliably extrapolate, it was an immensely compacted point of matter. Molecules came later.

Seaneh wrote: »

Now even if it's a expand/retract universe and it's happened 734,976,231,092 times and this is the nth beginning of time, there has to be a starting point because.

a) Matter (energy/mass) cannot be created destoryed only changed and

But if there were no time prior to the big bang then the laws of conservation of matter and energy don't actually apply. They both were in existence at time zero and continued.

Seaneh wrote: »

b) nothing can happen of itself, there has to be a catalyst, cause and effect.

If time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang then any cause is not a cause as we understand it. There could be no "before the Big Bang" any more then there could, to paraphrase Hawking, be any place north of the north pole.

Seaneh wrote: »

Even if you don't believe in the Jeudo-Chrsitianic view of a creator or whatever, you have to admit it's as possible that something caused the beginning of time (this "time") than the impossibility that Matter (energy/mass) came from nowhere and caused something of unobservable force without a catalyst.

Possible yes. I don't think anyone is claiming it to be impossible.

Seaneh wrote: »

I believe that the universe is roughly 14billion years old by the way.

I believe that humans have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years.

I also believe in God, I believe in Christ and I don't see how any of these belifes have to be exclusive of eachother as most athiests seem to believe.

I also think it's hilarious how Athiests will use a piece of scripture to try and trip up a christian in debate and then turn around and tell the same chirsitan that scripture cant be trusted/isnt accurate/aplicable in the same debate when it suits the christians arguement.

Last part was OT but worth throwing out there.

I don't see many atheists pointing to the Big Bang as a reason to dismiss Christianity in general. Creationism, yes. But I think most atheists dismiss Christianity on logical grounds, whether you agree with those or not.

Seaneh

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, despite it's name the Big Bang wasn't an explosion as such. Spacetime itself rapidly expanded, so there wasn't any space for the universe to explode into. It was also not an "infinitely small molecule", in fact we can't be sure what existed at time zero, but in the earliest moment we can reliably extrapolate, it was an immensely compacted point of matter. Molecules came later.

Still means that matter existed before zerotime and came from nowhere, no matter how your phrase it.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But if there were no time prior to the big bang then the laws of conservation of matter and energy don't actually apply. They both were in existence at time zero and continued.

seems just as much of a cop out as "I dont need proof, I have faith to me

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang then any cause is not a cause as we understand it. There could be no "before the Big Bang" any more then there could, to paraphrase Hawking, be any place north of the north pole.

Doesn't actually explain anything though, does it? It smiply means you really don't know. and I'm not attacking that at all, there is no way you could ever know, just as there is no way I will ever sprout wings and learn to fly.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Possible yes. I don't think anyone is claiming it to be impossible.

Thank you, but some Athiests will gawff at people of faith and try to imply that we are all mindless idiots because we believe in something that we cant explain that happens to be a God rather than believeing in the thing they cant explain which happens to be nothing.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't see many atheists pointing to the Big Bang as a reason to dismiss Christianity in general. Creationism, yes. But I think most atheists dismiss Christianity on logical grounds, whether you agree with those or not.

I really don't see that "Logic" though...
And I have no problems talking about this stuff with rational people such as yourself, and I honestly don't care if you ever believe in God, but some people are so bloody full of sh!te it's amazing.

AtomicHorror

Lovethinking wrote: »

The Big Bang has not been verified scientifically, neither has evolution.

Honestly, we wouldn't be building on these things if they hadn't already been verified scientifically. We're not in the business of chasing our tails. I suspect you've just misunderstood what we mean by "theory". What most people mean when they say "I have a theory", would be called an hypothesis by scientists. A testable idea.

When we call evolution and inflation "theories", we don't mean that in the colloquial sense. We mean that they are models which connect the known facts together cohesively via scientific laws and thus predict unknown facts. So evolution is based on the observed fact of evolution in the fossil record (that being that organisms vary over time), along with facts gathered from living organisms, genetic record and laboratory experimentation. These facts are then explained by laws such as the law of natural selection and the laws of mutation and inheritance. Those laws allow us to make predictions (like: "hey there should be a reptile with birdlike features A, B and C at level X in the fossil record, let's go digging- oh there it is"). The same can be said of inflation theory. We have some facts (eg. galaxies show Doppler shifting which means they're moving apart at an accelerating rate) and we build a model (extrapolate back in time and all of the galaxies come to a single point) which then, if correct, should allow us to make predictions (galaxy A at location B and distance C should be at stage D of formation and show Doppler shift E). If that prediction works every time then our theory is good.

Evolution and inflation have both predicted a great many facts and at times they've undergonemodification because of unexpected data. Both could hypothetically be falsified (disproven) by countless kinds of observations, but this has just never occurred. So the core theories remain. We're very very sure of them.

O'Coonassa

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We're very very sure of them.

Indeed but don't have a bull's notion of where or why the universe came from. I like to bring it down to the simplicity of the fact that there is no creation without it's creator and therefore no big bang without it's first cause. To me this seems like logic.

AtomicHorror

Seaneh wrote: »

Still means that matter existed before zerotime and came from nowhere, no matter how your phrase it.

No, nothing exists before zero time. Which is not to say that there was a distinct nothing there out of which stuff came. There just wasn't a before for a thing or a nothing to exist within. Matter existed at time zero.

Seaneh wrote: »

seems just as much of a cop out as "I dont need proof, I have faith to me

Doesn't actually explain anything though, does it? It smiply means you really don't know. and I'm not attacking that at all, there is no way you could ever know, just as there is no way I will ever sprout wings and learn to fly.

Well I think it would be fair to say that with regard to the big bang there is a lot we don't know. But that's not really an expression of faith, is it? Faith requires an assumption of some positive knowledge. Whereas I'm saying that we don't know what existed right at time zero, and we don't know if anything can exist outside of that in space, time or any other sense. That lack of knowledge allows us to say only "we don't know" and nothing more. We can hypothesise and hopefully test, so perhaps some day we'll have more answers.

Seaneh wrote: »

Thank you, but some Athiests will gawff at people of faith and try to imply that we are all mindless idiots because we believe in something that we cant explain that happens to be a God rather than believeing in the thing they cant explain which happens to be nothing.

All we believe in is what we've observed. What exactly it is remains open to investigation. To assume a thing is something in a vacuum of testable knowledge only makes sense if you intend to test that assumption and discard it if it is found lacking.

Seaneh wrote: »

I really don't see that "Logic" though...
And I have no problems talking about this stuff with rational people such as yourself, and I honestly don't care if you ever believe in God, but some people are so bloody full of sh!te it's amazing.

Well perhaps my previous comment there might shed a little light on the matter for you. I'm not personally interested in proselytising to religious people except where they directly contradict established facts and I gather that you're not interested in clinging to dogma if it is contradicted by your observations and logic, so I think perhaps we're tending towards the same point from different sides.

That or it's 2:30 am and my brain is broken.

AtomicHorror

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Indeed but don't have a bull's notion of where or why the universe came from. I like to bring it down to the simplicity of the fact that there is no creation without it's creator and therefore no big bang without it's first cause. To me this seems like logic.

Yes, and it would to most people. Thing is, it's starting to look like cause and effect are a fair bit weirder than our intuition would suggest. Since they're functions of time, how do we deal with cause and effect when time breaks down as it seems to at the big bang? I deal with it by rubbing my forehead. Physics is not my forte.

Seaneh

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think perhaps we're tending towards the same point from different sides.

possibly!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That or it's 2:30 am and my brain is broken.

Yeah, it's sleep O'Clock for me too.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Thing is, it's starting to look like cause and effect are a fair bit weirder than our intuition would suggest. Since they're functions of time, how do we deal with cause and effect when time breaks down as it seems to at the big bang?

It's not exactly cause and effect, but the Relativity of Simultaneity is as good and simple an example of how one's own everyday intuitions about space and time simply aren't up to the job of dealing with non-everyday physics. More on this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The train analogy is the easiest way to wrap one's head around it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So the universe just spontaneously popped into being out of nothing?

No, it's far more subtle than that. See innumerable other posts which explain this in detail. Or read a book on the topic.

Serious question here:

This topic comes up every few days. A christian says "You guys think the universe popped into existence out of nothing? That's daft!" Somebody familiar with BB Theory says, "No, that's not what BB says. Instead, BB says that <fill in complex explanation involving creation of time, before which time has no meaning or something similar>".

Why can't most christians remember this? Even if one doesn't recall the fine detail, I would have thought it was easy to remember that the simplistic notion that the universe "popped into being out of nothing" is wrong?

Seaneh

robindch wrote: »

Why can't most christians remember this? Even if one doesn't recall the fine detail, I would have thought it was easy to remember that the simplistic notion that the universe "popped into being out of nothing" is wrong?

Because it's never actually explained, all that's ever said is "actually, we don't know what preceeded zerotime, if anything, and we never will" but try to cover it up by bringing up stuff that doesn't really matter.

And really, we have a point when we ask "If not God, then where the feck did it come from?".

No point in acting like you know what the answer is when you don't and never will because you can't. Just admit you don't, you never will, it's just as possible that God did it as it is that it all came from nowhere, drop the militant fanatasism towards athism and accept that people choose believe in God and we can all just get along.

Fair enough, aruge with people who think the world is 5000 years old or that God lives on a cloud somwhere over Bermuda but get off the high horse and stop acting like you have any more of a clue of how or wht the universe is here than anybody else.

This wasn't directed solely at you so don't take it as an attack, it is aimed at all Sagenites and Dawkinites who seem to think they are somehow more enlightened than Christiandom when in fact they haven't a flipping clue.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

No, it's far more subtle than that. See innumerable other posts which explain this in detail. Or read a book on the topic.

Serious question here:

This topic comes up every few days. A christian says "You guys think the universe popped into existence out of nothing? That's daft!" Somebody familiar with BB Theory says, "No, that's not what BB says. Instead, BB says that <fill in complex explanation involving creation of time, before which time has no meaning or something similar>".

Why can't most christians remember this? Even if one doesn't recall the fine detail, I would have thought it was easy to remember that the simplistic notion that the universe "popped into being out of nothing" is wrong?

Yeah, since we're expected not to do the Leviticus gag-reel due to the "fulfilled covenant" explanation, I think it'd be nice if we could put "nothing created everything" canard to rest.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

It's not exactly cause and effect, but the Relativity of Simultaneity is as good and simple an example of how one's own everyday intuitions about space and time simply aren't up to the job of dealing with non-everyday physics. More on this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

The train analogy is the easiest way to wrap one's head around it.

I'll take a look, cheers!

Seaneh wrote: »

Because it's never actually explained, all that's ever said is "actually, we don't know what preceeded zerotime, if anything, and we never will" but try to cover it up by bringing up stuff that doesn't really matter.

And really, we have a point when we ask "If not God, then where the feck did it come from?".

But inserting God doesn't actually get you any further. You may define God as being eternal and thus requiring no cause, but if you can do that we can also logically do the same for the universe itself minus God. Or for a universe, created by a God, who was himself created by someone else defined as eternal. We could put the "eternal by definition" label on any stage really, be it intelligent or otherwise. It's a bit like the "turtles all the way down" argument, I think.

pts

Seaneh wrote: »

And really, we have a point when we ask "If not God, then where the feck did it come from?".

In fairness I think you're not comparing like with like. If I ask you what created the universe you'd presumably say God did it. Maybe you'd be a bit more honest than that and say "I'm not going to act like I know the answer, as I don't and never will and can't" (to paraphrase your last post slightly) you might then continue with "however my hypothesis is that the God I believe in did it". This would be an answer I might not agree with, but I would respect it.

You might be curious what I think and ask me the same question. I might answer with something like: "I'm not going to act like I know the answer, as I don't, maybe it is unknowable". Unlike you I don't like telling people what they can or can not ever know, or what humanity can or can not ever know. To early man the sun rising every morning was probably something they thought they could never understand.

If you asked me what I believe created the universe I'd answer "a naturalistic process".

Comparing our answers to the same question is comparing like with like. We could get into a debate on if both answers are as probable, but that's a debate for another day.

My point is that the who/what question is not the same as the how question.
Asking someone to explain the naturalistic process which may have created the universe is like me asking you to explain how God created the universe. You could quote the Book of Genesis, but I would expect something that is slightly more consistent with reality. So if you think that current scientific theories on the origin of the Universe don't hold under your scrutiny try applying the same level of scepticism to your answer to the how (not the who/what) question.

I highly recomend this video. I would love to hear what you think of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

AtomicHorror

Love that video. Can't count the number of times I've been called closed minded because I wouldn't accept a variety of things based on no evidence at all. Examples have included "there is a cure for cancer but the corporations are suppressing it" and "multivitamins extend your life by decades". I ask for evidence and suddenly it's all "mainstream scientists are so closed minded and dogmatic". So, how is it that we're still making scientific progress? If we're closed minded we should be stagnant.

Morbert

liah wrote: »

...I can't find it.

A common argument against the big bang theory and various other similar theories that Christians often present in favour of God is the idea that it's incredibly hard to believe that the universe just popped into existence from absolutely nothing.

This begs the question: where did God come from? And if your answer is "God has just always existed, for eternity" then why is it impossible for you to believe that the universe could have done the same?

Infinity and eternity and the beginnings of the universe are things that will forever be beyond human comprehension, I think. I just fail to see how it's a valid argument to think that the universe coming into existence randomly, or having just "always been," is hard to believe, but a God coming into existence randomly, or having just "always been," isn't.

Can someone clear this up for me? I don't know how it works, because in my view it's the same thing, but I'm probably missing something vital, which is why I'm asking you.

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God are common. They are also ineffective (despite the enthusiasm of people like William Lain Craig).

We can describe approximately 13 billion years of the history of the universe with our current level of physics. But we cannot assert that the universe began 13 billion years ago, or that the big bang truly was a singularity, or that the universe must have a 'beginning', or that the universe must have an external cause if it has a beginning. All of these assertions involve implicit assumptions that aren't terribly compelling.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God are common. They are also ineffective (despite the enthusiasm of people like William Lain Craig).

We can describe approximately 13 billion years of the history of the universe with our current level of physics. But we cannot assert that the universe began 13 billion years ago, or that the big bang truly was a singularity, or that the universe must have a 'beginning', or that the universe must have an external cause if it has a beginning. All of these assertions involve implicit assumptions that aren't terribly compelling.

They might not be compelling to you, but they are compelling for millions of people.

To most of us it just looks as if, in order to get around the cosmological argument, that some folks have invented a notion that nothing needed to exist before time began. It comes across as a bit of debating sleight of hand where 'counter-inutitive' really means 'nonsensical' and we're expected to believe a load of old tosh because some guys in white coats say, "You can't understand all this, but trust us because we're scientists."

I don't see a scientist as being any more inherently trustworthy than a priest. I'm not going to trust either of them just because of the positiion they hold, and they need to argue their case a lot more clearly and convincingly if they want me to believe it.

It is certainly not reasonable for atheists to say to Christians "Remember this because we've told you before" when the people who are doing the telling are extremely biased and we've caught them out telling porkie pies on numerous occasions on subjects where we do have the knowledge to catch them out.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

They might not be compelling to you, but they are compelling for millions of people.

To most of us it just looks as if, in order to get around the cosmological argument, that some folks have invented a notion that nothing needed to exist before time began. It comes across as a bit of debating sleight of hand where 'counter-inutitive' really means 'nonsensical' and we're expected to believe a load of old tosh because some guys in white coats say, "You can't understand all this, but trust us because we're scientists."

Who has said "You can't understand all this, but trust us because we're scientists."? When does 'counter-intuitive' really mean 'nonsensical'? Who expects you to believe a load of old tosh (and what tosh are you referring to)? What 'notion' are you referring to, and how is it related to anything I said?

To be honest, your first paragraph sounds entirely irrelevant to what I said. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask for an explanation.

I don't see a scientist as being any more inherently trustworthy than a priest. I'm not going to trust either of them just because of the positiion they hold, and they need to argue their case a lot more clearly and convincingly if they want me to believe it.

Again, you are being terribly vague. The topic is, specifically, the cosmological argument, not simply the world views of scientists and priests. Do you accept that, on average, a cosmologist will be more informed about cosmology than a priest? Much of what I will eventually say about the cosmological argument will be informed by the work of cosmologists. My intention will not be to disprove God, or to argue that he does not exist, but to demonstrate why the cosmological argument is misguided, and ultimately wrong. I can't do that if you find cosmology an untrustworthy field.

It is certainly not reasonable for atheists to say to Christians "Remember this because we've told you before" when the people who are doing the telling are extremely biased and we've caught them out telling porkie pies on numerous occasions on subjects where we do have the knowledge to catch them out.

To understand why the cosmological argument is wrong, you only need to understand some cosmology and physics. You don't need to hear it from atheists, as there are several good science books out there.

If, on the other hand, you are implying that any information I present will be inherently untrustworthy because I am biased and might tell porky pies, then let me know now, so that I don't have to waste my time.