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.