Explain how God can exist

[bling]

The atheists I have talked with are not looking for faith in the existence of God, but undeniable evidence (knowledge) for God’s existence.

They really do not realize it takes a great deal more faith to believe “God does not exist” than to believe God does exist.

As a scientist I can go into what we know and do not know scientifically, but that does not make a convert.

A tree is evidence of God’s existence if you are willing to accept that evidence.

Some have already said, but I will repeat it: “our actions (Love) can really do more to get them to the point of wanting or not wanting that kind of Love for themselves.”

Does your atheist friend really want to know? How would it greatly change his/her life to the positive if he/she did know?

The reality is; most do not really want to know except maybe academically (have some greater knowledge). Without believing in God, they do not believe in hell, so hell does not bother them. They do not have to make a change.

As Christians we are here to serve others, but most atheists do not “want” our help (charity of God) and since there are tons of people really wanting our help we might have to leave the atheist for a while (this is really hard to do if the atheist is your child).

 

[ATP]

The reality is; most do not really want to know except maybe academically (have some greater knowledge). Without believing in God, they do not believe in hell, so hell does not bother them. They do not have to make a change.

The atheist would need to use their mouth and heart. The reality is that most people rather watch Madonna perform silly stunts then confess and believe.

Rom 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

 

[River Jordan]

How can you prove, with credibility and evidence, that God does in fact exist?

So I went and contacted one of my acquaintances (friend of a friend) who is an atheist and asked him this question: How could someone prove to you that God exists? Here is my summary of what he said.

You don't have to "prove" that God exists. What you have to do is show me some independently verifiable evidence that God exists. Personal revelations, anecdotes, and old books are not objective, independently verifiable evidence. Think of it this way....what would convince you that the Hindu God Vishnu does in fact exist? If you understand that, then you'll understand what I'm asking for with your God.

(RJ speaking again) IMO, God isn't something that we "prove" to others. God has to be experienced.

 

[Born_Again]

So I went and contacted one of my acquaintances (friend of a friend) who is an atheist and asked him this question: How could someone prove to you that God exists? Here is my summary of what he said.

You don't have to "prove" that God exists. What you have to do is show me some independently verifiable evidence that God exists. Personal revelations, anecdotes, and old books are not objective, independently verifiable evidence. Think of it this way....what would convince you that the Hindu God Vishnu does in fact exist? If you understand that, then you'll understand what I'm asking for with your God.

(RJ speaking again) IMO, God isn't something that we "prove" to others. God has to be experienced.

RJ, Your comment at the end is absolutely true, at least I agree with it. It is through my own experiences that I know He is there.

 

[Wormwood]

I think responses such as the ontological argument, cosmological argument, etc. are substantial proof that "a God" exists. I believe this to be different than convincing a Christian that a Hindu god is a true god. I think it is logical to conclude there is a Creator. It seems to me that personal experience is the primarly rationale for most athiests (in that they feel they need to experience or see God before believing in Him). Rationally, I think it is quite difficult to dismiss God given life, order, harmony, intellect, music, creativity, beauty, morality, etc.

However, assessing which God or gods (if any) is the actual cause behind all of this is quite another matter. I find the Bible not only makes sense with what we observe around us, but also resonates with truth in regards to the life it gives and love it produces.

So, while this friend of a friend may feel in his mind that the two concepts are equal, I would disagree (not that he would care). I think evaluating the truth claims of Hinduism with that of Christianity is far different than observing existance and the cosmos and saying its the same as claiming it all came from nothing with no purpose or order.

 

[River Jordan]

I think responses such as the ontological argument, cosmological argument, etc. are substantial proof that "a God" exists.

I disagree. I've never seen an iteration of those that I've found very convincing. They seem to rely heavily on scientific ignorance and special pleading, and serve mostly to reassure believers rather than change the minds of non-believers.

I believe this to be different than convincing a Christian that a Hindu god is a true god. I think it is logical to conclude there is a Creator. It seems to me that personal experience is the primarly rationale for most athiests (in that they feel they need to experience or see God before believing in Him). Rationally, I think it is quite difficult to dismiss God given life, order, harmony, intellect, music, creativity, beauty, morality, etc.

However, assessing which God or gods (if any) is the actual cause behind all of this is quite another matter. I find the Bible not only makes sense with what we observe around us, but also resonates with truth in regards to the life it gives and love it produces.

I agree.

So, while this friend of a friend may feel in his mind that the two concepts are equal, I would disagree (not that he would care). I think evaluating the truth claims of Hinduism with that of Christianity is far different than observing existance and the cosmos and saying its the same as claiming it all came from nothing with no purpose or order.

And that would likely irritate this guy...."everything from nothing" is a common (and ignorant) creationist straw man of modern cosmology.

 

[Wormwood]

I disagree. I've never seen an iteration of those that I've found very convincing. They seem to rely heavily on scientific ignorance and special pleading, and serve mostly to reassure believers rather than change the minds of non-believers.

No, this is certainly not the case. The ontological argument has been around long before scientific "proofs." It is a philosophical argument that was developed by Anselm around 1100 AD. The cosmological argument is also primarily philosophical, although sometimes some scientific arguments are included, and is based on the concept of a first cause and postulations about the impossibility of an infinite regression or eternal matter. The teleological argument also predates scientific "proofs" as it was used by Aquinas as one of his "five ways." However, as this argument has developed alongside of scientific discoveries, it has often utilized scientific arguments of apparent design. The historical argument is decidedly non-scientific as it is based primarily on early documentation of eye-witnesses and the remarkable growth of Christianity in spite of its context.

So, only one of these arguments regularly employs scientific discoveries for validation. Yet even the teleological argument was developed prior to the scientific revolution and so is somewhat independent of scientific proofs.

And that would likely irritate this guy...."everything from nothing" is a common (and ignorant) creationist straw man of modern cosmology.

Ha, well, Im sure I would irritate lots of people as I explain my rationale for believing (and I do believe the Christian faith is rational). Essentially, popular big bang theories understand all matter to at one time have been compressed into a space smaller than a pixel on this screen. Some argue that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting. In any event, there are two options: matter is eternal, or matter came from nothing. Either way, you have a view that has a mind and power bringing matter and energy into existence vs a view that has matter and energy coming from nothing or existing eternally. In my opinion, both approaches have irreconcilable problems.

 

[River Jordan]

No, this is certainly not the case. The ontological argument has been around long before scientific "proofs." It is a philosophical argument that was developed by Anselm around 1100 AD. The cosmological argument is also primarily philosophical, although sometimes some scientific arguments are included, and is based on the concept of a first cause and postulations about the impossibility of an infinite regression or eternal matter. The teleological argument also predates scientific "proofs" as it was used by Aquinas as one of his "five ways." However, as this argument has developed alongside of scientific discoveries, it has often utilized scientific arguments of apparent design. The historical argument is decidedly non-scientific as it is based primarily on early documentation of eye-witnesses and the remarkable growth of Christianity in spite of its context.

So, only one of these arguments regularly employs scientific discoveries for validation. Yet even the teleological argument was developed prior to the scientific revolution and so is somewhat independent of scientific proofs.

I'm aware of the history of those arguments. My point was that most of the Christian apologetic versions of them that I hear today involve appeals to "design" in one form or another. And I've yet to see one that doesn't contain some pretty obvious errors/holes.

Ha, well, Im sure I would irritate lots of people as I explain my rationale for believing (and I do believe the Christian faith is rational). Essentially, popular big bang theories understand all matter to at one time have been compressed into a space smaller than a pixel on this screen. Some argue that the universe has been continually expanding and contracting. In any event, there are two options: matter is eternal, or matter came from nothing. Either way, you have a view that has a mind and power bringing matter and energy into existence vs a view that has matter and energy coming from nothing or existing eternally. In my opinion, both approaches have irreconcilable problems.

Today's cosmology generally posits that time itself came into existence at the big bang, which means time didn't exist until then. That means there was no "before the big bang", nor was there a time in which nothing existed. That's why "nothing became everything" is a ridiculous straw man, and why "everything is eternal" is overly simplistic.

 

[raindog308]

Today's cosmology generally posits that time itself came into existence at the big bang, which means time didn't exist until then. That means there was no "before the big bang", nor was there a time in which nothing existed. That's why "nothing became everything" is a ridiculous straw man, and why "everything is eternal" is overly simplistic.

Though recently the idea of the big bang itself has been called into question...

One doesn't need time to have causation, though. It's trivial to prove prove that time itself doesn't exist - after all, in this very present moment, all you have is memories of the past, not proofs of them. If I knock over my coffee cup, the next moment I have a puddle and maybe a memory and perhaps scalded flesh and maybe even video tape of the event, but that's all stuff that exists now, not proof of the past.

(Yes, I believe time exists, but it's unprovable).

It is frankly impossible to state that something did not cause existence to exist. This universe - we don't know. But existence itself, reality, the nature of reality, the very idea of something existing, the state of existence - what is that? Is the universe all there is? Philosophically, no.

To this I would add that if sentient intelligence exists at our level (you and me), I have a hard time believing it does not exist at the level of whatever caused reality.

I readily grant that this does not mean that whatever that is, it is a God who is interested in you and me. But the idea of higher life forms than humans seems inescapable to me.

Frankly, I think the existence of God is where science leaves off and philosophy and religion picks up. If you need to prove everything scientifically, then you will have a very poor life. There are many questions that science can never answer.

 

[Wormwood]

I'm aware of the history of those arguments. My point was that most of the Christian apologetic versions of them that I hear today involve appeals to "design" in one form or another. And I've yet to see one that doesn't contain some pretty obvious errors/holes.

Well, that is the teleological argument (which I believe is a very powerful and valid argument...even though it can be misused, especially by overzealous Christians. That being said, I think non-Christians are often equally at fault in their claims for lack of design.). The other arguments aren't based on appeals to design.

Today's cosmology generally posits that time itself came into existence at the big bang, which means time didn't exist until then. That means there was no "before the big bang", nor was there a time in which nothing existed. That's why "nothing became everything" is a ridiculous straw man, and why "everything is eternal" is overly simplistic.

Its not a ridiculous straw man. You apparently did not read very carefully what I wrote. I said their are TWO options for the no God proponents: 1) Everything came from nothing or 2) matter and energy are eternal. Look at what you just said, "Time itself came into existence at the big bang." Everything includes time. So, your friend holds the opinion that everything came from nothing. Time came from nothing. Matter came from nothing. Something exploded for an unknown reason and apparently without cause which created time, energy, matter, etc., that did not exist prior to that big bang. I find that a highly problematic view on many levels, although this forum is probably not the venue to explore them.

raindog, essentially you are employing the ontological argument. You should read Anselm and others on the subject. I would disagree with your last statement. If God truly created the cosmos, then how can you say that God's existence excludes science? His creation is a key way to understand him as the Creator...and I think the Bible makes this claim many times.
Romans 1:19　For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20　For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[River Jordan]

Its not a ridiculous straw man. You apparently did not read very carefully what I wrote. I said their are TWO options for the no God proponents: 1) Everything came from nothing or 2) matter and energy are eternal. Look at what you just said, "Time itself came into existence at the big bang." Everything includes time. So, your friend holds the opinion that everything came from nothing. Time came from nothing. Matter came from nothing. Something exploded for an unknown reason and apparently without cause which created time, energy, matter, etc., that did not exist prior to that big bang. I find that a highly problematic view on many levels, although this forum is probably not the venue to explore them.

Nope, sorry. Those are somewhat simplistic straw men of modern cosmology. It's ok though, the concepts are pretty counter-intuitive and hard to wrap one's head around. Let's just say that as soon as any Christian says to an atheist "You believe nothing created everything" in most cases you've immediately lost them.

Though recently the idea of the big bang itself has been called into question...

By who, and where?

One doesn't need time to have causation, though. It's trivial to prove prove that time itself doesn't exist - after all, in this very present moment, all you have is memories of the past, not proofs of them. If I knock over my coffee cup, the next moment I have a puddle and maybe a memory and perhaps scalded flesh and maybe even video tape of the event, but that's all stuff that exists now, not proof of the past.

(Yes, I believe time exists, but it's unprovable).

When we're talking cosmology and physics, time is a mathematical variable in their equations.

It is frankly impossible to state that something did not cause existence to exist. This universe - we don't know. But existence itself, reality, the nature of reality, the very idea of something existing, the state of existence - what is that? Is the universe all there is? Philosophically, no.

To this I would add that if sentient intelligence exists at our level (you and me), I have a hard time believing it does not exist at the level of whatever caused reality.

I readily grant that this does not mean that whatever that is, it is a God who is interested in you and me. But the idea of higher life forms than humans seems inescapable to me.

Frankly, I think the existence of God is where science leaves off and philosophy and religion picks up. If you need to prove everything scientifically, then you will have a very poor life. There are many questions that science can never answer.

Well put.

 

[Wormwood]

Nope, sorry. Those are somewhat simplistic straw men of modern cosmology. It's ok though, the concepts are pretty counter-intuitive and hard to wrap one's head around. Let's just say that as soon as any Christian says to an atheist "You believe nothing created everything" in most cases you've immediately lost them.

Hmmm, that's interesting, because this is exactly what the major publications of "modern cosmology" say.

According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.795Tqv70.dpuf

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. This theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed, in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force. Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time....The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/

Hubble noted that galaxies outside our own Milky Way were all moving away from us, each at a speed proportional to its distance from us. He quickly realized what this meant that there must have been an instant in time (now known to be about 14 billion years ago) when the entire Universe was contained in a single point in space. The Universe must have been born in this single violent event which came to be known as the "Big Bang."
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously.
According to NASA, after inflation the growth of the universe continued, but at a slower rate. As space expanded, the universe cooled and matter formed. One second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos.
http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory.htm

The Big Bang is often described as the modern scientific theory of creation, the mathematical answer to Genesis. But this notion obscures an essential fallacy: The Big Bang theory does not tell us how the universe began. It tells us how the universe evolved, beginning a tiny fraction of a second after it all started. As the rewound cosmic film approaches the first frame, the mathematics breaks down, closing the lens just as the creation event is about to fill the screen. And so, when it comes to explaining the bang itself—the primordial push that must have set the universe headlong on its expansionary course—the Big Bang theory is silent.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/history-big-bang-theory-180951168/?no-ist

So I don't know what your friends are reading that would make them scoff at the idea that the "Big bang" has no answers for its cause or what made all matter, time and energy condensed into a singular point. Yet that is what every major publication I have ever read on the matter says. It simply describes this as a theory with different postulations about what happened before, or if there even was a before, for those who believe time was created by the big bang. In any event, your friends notion that the big bang is a sufficient explanatory device for ultimate origins is in error. As these articles show, it is simply a means of explaining the expansion of the universe and not a tool for explaining origins or its ultimate cause. All of that is sheer guesswork since science cannot even apply to the big bang since scientists claim all laws simply break down at such a point. The Big Bang is a non-answer for origins, laws, and time. This is not my ignorant assumption. It is what those who write in articles on the subject readily claim.

While Christians can be overzealous in their "design" claims and do science and Christianity a disservice, so non-Christians can be arrogant and misleading in their claims of scientific "answers." I think this is a text-book example. This notion of, "You are just an ignorant Christian who doesn't get the real answers science provides, and its too complex to explain it to you" is nothing but a condescending song and dance. The Big Bang provides no answers on this issue. To claim it does is to make statements that scientists do not make...nor intend to with this theory. The only answer is "We don't know." (Which is essentially saying, "Possibly time began at the big bang, and we don't know what caused the explosion or what, if anything existed prior to it." just as I claimed).

In sum, the theory asserts that all matter, energy and possibly time was condensed into this small hot particle that exploded for an unknown reason and gave birth to all energy, matter and possibly time. The other theory is that this expansion is part of an ongoing, possibly eternal expansion and contraction of matter and energy. Both raise serious scientific and philosophical questions. But as I asserted before, one claims everything we know came from this infinitely small particle (everything from essentially nothing), or everything is in eternal expansion and contraction.

 

[River Jordan]

So I don't know what your friends are reading that would make them scoff at the idea that the "Big bang" has no answers for its cause or what made all matter, time and energy condensed into a singular point.

Um....that's not what I said. I'm fully aware that the cause of the big bang is unknown. But there's a difference between "unknown" and "nothing".

So let's clarify here. My point is that if in a discussion with an atheist about God you said "Well, you believe nothing created everything", you would get two main responses...."Actually, we don't know what caused it all" and "'Nothing created everything' is an overly simplistic description of some of modern cosmology's attempts to answer this question".

In any event, your friends notion that the big bang is a sufficient explanatory device for ultimate origins is in error. As these articles show, it is simply a means of explaining the expansion of the universe and not a tool for explaining origins or its ultimate cause. All of that is sheer guesswork since science cannot even apply to the big bang since scientists claim all laws simply break down at such a point. The Big Bang is a non-answer for origins, laws, and time. This is not my ignorant assumption. It is what those who write in articles on the subject readily claim.

Again, no one has said otherwise. I don't know where you got the idea that me, or anyone else, said that we know what caused it all.

While Christians can be overzealous in their "design" claims and do science and Christianity a disservice, so non-Christians can be arrogant and misleading in their claims of scientific "answers." I think this is a text-book example. This notion of, "You are just an ignorant Christian who doesn't get the real answers science provides, and its too complex to explain it to you" is nothing but a condescending song and dance. The Big Bang provides no answers on this issue. To claim it does is to make statements that scientists do not make...nor intend to with this theory. The only answer is "We don't know." (Which is essentially saying, "Possibly time began at the big bang, and we don't know what caused the explosion or what, if anything existed prior to it." just as I claimed).

Again you're arguing against your own straw man.

In sum, the theory asserts that all matter, energy and possibly time was condensed into this small hot particle that exploded for an unknown reason and gave birth to all energy, matter and possibly time.

Other than the explosion part, yes.

The other theory is that this expansion is part of an ongoing, possibly eternal expansion and contraction of matter and energy.

That's generally not widely accepted much any more (although there are some advocates). Accelerating expansion kinda rules it out.

But as I asserted before, one claims everything we know came from this infinitely small particle (everything from essentially nothing), or everything is in eternal expansion and contraction.

"From an infinitely small particle" is not the same thing as "from nothing". If it was truly "nothing", then there would be no need to mention any particle in the first place.

 

[Wormwood]

Um....that's not what I said. I'm fully aware that the cause of the big bang is unknown. But there's a difference between "unknown" and "nothing".

So let's clarify here. My point is that if in a discussion with an atheist about God you said "Well, you believe nothing created everything", you would get two main responses...."Actually, we don't know what caused it all" and "'Nothing created everything' is an overly simplistic description of some of modern cosmology's attempts to answer this question".

Your implication was the scientific detail behind the theory is beyond us and to simplify it to "nothing created everything" is a display of ignorance of the actual theory. The reality is that the theory has no answers. However, many proponents of the theory argue that all time, matter and energy was "created" at the moment of the "big bang." Since an atheist rejects the notion that God exists, one has to conclude that "nothing" created everything. If they claim, "Well we don't know what caused the big bang which created everything" than that is still a plea to nothingness. If something caused the big bang, then the atheist still will claim, "Whatever it was, it wasn't a god."

In sum, essentially the argument of the big bang is that something exploded billions of years ago that created time, space, energy, matter and everything we see today. If you friend claims there is no God, then nothing caused the something. Now he/she might not like the rationale simplifications of such a view, but that doesn't make them any less true.

Again, no one has said otherwise. I don't know where you got the idea that me, or anyone else, said that we know what caused it all.

Oh my bad. So your friend would be offended at the "ignorance" of the statement, "nothing caused everything." However, if we are more intelligent and scientifically-minded enough, we try to "wrap our heads around" the statement, "We don't know what caused everything." or, "a infinitely small, mindless particle created everything." smh. Yes, that scientific deduction makes all the difference. Good thing we have modern cosmology to straighten out the ignorant Christians on that issue.

In any event, you are missing the very simple logical conclusion (of which no cosmology even attempts to dismiss as you have tried to argue). There are two options. Infinite regression or a beginning of all things. If God is claimed not to exist and the big bang is used by the atheist to explain "beginning of all things (time, matter, space, laws, etc.)" then nothing caused the beginning of everything. It's really quite simple, and no pleading for the depths of "modern cosmology" makes it any less straight forward.

"From an infinitely small particle" is not the same thing as "from nothing". If it was truly "nothing", then there would be no need to mention any particle in the first place.

As the articles point out...the "particle" is mere guesswork. The laws of science do not even apply here...so there is nothing to wrap our heads around to make this more logical. The idea is that this is how they think our universe began, but there is no explanation of where the particle came from or what caused it to explode or expand in the first place. Thus, we are left with nothing. If nothing created it, then it always existed (infinite regression). If the particle was created somehow, and God is not allowed...nothing created it. It just came into being and exploded. Those are the only two logical options if someone is using the big bang to explain everything that exists.

 

[River Jordan]

Your implication was the scientific detail behind the theory is beyond us and to simplify it to "nothing created everything" is a display of ignorance of the actual theory.

*sigh*

Why does it seem like whenever I point out that some scientific subjects are highly technical and require some level of study to fully grasp, you (and others) immediately take that as an insult to your intelligence? It's like...

"Modern big bang cosmology is a pretty complex and counter-intuitive subject that requires quite a bit of study to fully grasp."

YOU'RE SAYING IT'S TOO DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M DUMB!!!1!!!

Come on....let's be serious here. Are you really disputing that today's cosmology is a very technical, specialized, and complex field of science?

The reality is that the theory has no answers. However, many proponents of the theory argue that all time, matter and energy was "created" at the moment of the "big bang." Since an atheist rejects the notion that God exists, one has to conclude that "nothing" created everything.

So do you believe that any event that doesn't specifically have God as a direct cause is therefore caused by nothing?

If they claim, "Well we don't know what caused the big bang which created everything" than that is still a plea to nothingness.

No, it's a statement of truth. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science. It's why we still have science. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be anything left to study or figure out, and therefore no need for science.

If something caused the big bang, then the atheist still will claim, "Whatever it was, it wasn't a god."

Well yeah, that's what makes them atheists.

Oh my bad. So your friend would be offended at the "ignorance" of the statement, "nothing caused everything." However, if we are more intelligent and scientifically-minded enough, we try to "wrap our heads around" the statement, "We don't know what caused everything." or, "a infinitely small, mindless particle created everything." smh. Yes, that scientific deduction makes all the difference. Good thing we have modern cosmology to straighten out the ignorant Christians on that issue.

Looks to me like you're in line with those Christians who are rooting against science and hoping they never figure this out. IMO, that's (as Ken Miller put it) seeking God in the darkness of our ignorance rather than in the light of our discovery.

In any event, you are missing the very simple logical conclusion (of which no cosmology even attempts to dismiss as you have tried to argue). There are two options. Infinite regression or a beginning of all things.

Ok so far.

If God is claimed not to exist and the big bang is used by the atheist to explain "beginning of all things (time, matter, space, laws, etc.)" then nothing caused the beginning of everything.

What if science does identify a natural cause? Will that be "nothing"?

As the articles point out...the "particle" is mere guesswork. The laws of science do not even apply here...so there is nothing to wrap our heads around to make this more logical.

Actually there is, but you have to go deep into quantum mechanics. Oh, I'm sorry....did I imply that this is very technical and requires some level of study? I didn't mean to insult you!!

 

[Wormwood]

*sigh*
Why does it seem like whenever I point out that some scientific subjects are highly technical and require some level of study to fully grasp, you (and others) immediately take that as an insult to your intelligence? It's like...
"Modern big bang cosmology is a pretty complex and counter-intuitive subject that requires quite a bit of study to fully grasp."
YOU'RE SAYING IT'S TOO DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M DUMB!!!1!!!
Come on....let's be serious here. Are you really disputing that today's cosmology is a very technical, specialized, and complex field of science?

I am in no way saying that astronomy is not a technical field of science. I am saying that arguing the "big bang" as an uncaused explanation of all things is not based in that technical science. That is a red herring. The technicality of astronomy has nothing to do with the origins of the big bang as you originally implied.

So do you believe that any event that doesn't specifically have God as a direct cause is therefore caused by nothing?

No. I am saying there are two logical conclusions for origins: there are no origins (infinite regression), or something began to exist. I find the idea that nothing caused the existence of everything to be nonsensical.

No, it's a statement of truth. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science.

That is not what you were claiming and you know it. You made it sound like it was too technical to wrap our heads around...when the fact is, the big bang assumes a cause but does not explain it. Thus, it is not an explanation for origins as you claim your friends would assert.

Looks to me like you're in line with those Christians who are rooting against science and hoping they never figure this out. IMO, that's (as Ken Miller put it) seeking God in the darkness of our ignorance rather than in the light of our discovery.

1. I'm being intentionally sarcastic. 2. You seem to prefer scientific claims of ignorance to biblical claims of origins. This seems to be a theme with you. I think you are too fixed on being well thought of in the world of "science" (which we already both agreed the origins of the big bang does not apply to this "science.").

What if science does identify a natural cause? Will that be "nothing"?

Again, talking about origins. Every cause has an effect. Thus, if the universe is the "effect" of another cause, then we look for its cause. Again, there is either an infinite regression or an "uncaused first cause." That cause has to either be a Creator or nothing. In which, "nothing caused everything" is a completely honest and accurate statement.

Actually there is, but you have to go deep into quantum mechanics. Oh, I'm sorry....did I imply that this is very technical and requires some level of study? I didn't mean to insult you!!

According to all the material I have read on this, once you go back to the original "particle" of the universe, the laws of the universe no longer exist (since the particle caused the universe and its laws). Thus, science does not apply where the laws were supposedly not in existence or just being formed. If you have some suggested reading material, I am always eager to learn.

I am not opposed to study or opposed to concepts that may be beyond my level of expertise. I am opposed to someone claiming that their view on origins is beyond unscientific Christians when, in reality, everyone who writes on the theory claims that it is no explanation of origins. Thus, their being "offended" by such as statement is either due to their ignorance or is just intentionally misleading to propagate more nonsense that Christians are "unscientific."

 

[HammerStone]

*sigh*

Why does it seem like whenever I point out that some scientific subjects are highly technical and require some level of study to fully grasp, you (and others) immediately take that as an insult to your intelligence? It's like...

"Modern big bang cosmology is a pretty complex and counter-intuitive subject that requires quite a bit of study to fully grasp."

YOU'RE SAYING IT'S TOO DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M DUMB!!!1!!!

Come on....let's be serious here. Are you really disputing that today's cosmology is a very technical, specialized, and complex field of science?

RJ, I will stay out of this discussion because I think both you and Wormwood are doing it justice, but I had to interject here because you seem to be somewhat ignorant of how your diction may or may not convey the tone that you intend. With all due respect, almost every response you have in some way says "you don't know enough about ______" or almost literally "you need a class in ________" which gets a little old for the ones hearing it repeatedly. (For instance, in the posting here.)

I realize many of us are not the most articulate, but if you continue to dismiss everything because it's not your preferred statement or way to phrase things as merely a function of education, then surely you understand the implicit insult conveyed in such language if you're able to even take just a step back? If not, then I am afraid you are no less biased than the fundamentalists you rail so fervently against, albeit perhaps in a more sophisticated manner. Essentially, if you engage even in a philosophical or theological argument, your challenges almost always fall back to the complexity of science. That's dandy if you want to argue that angle, but do not act surprised or frustrated if people get tired of hearing the default form of "you're not educated enough to talk about such things." It more or less becomes ad hominem, though I am not sure of malicious intent.

 

[River Jordan]

I am in no way saying that astronomy is not a technical field of science.

And do you agree that a certain amount of study is required to properly grasp it?

I am saying that arguing the "big bang" as an uncaused explanation of all things is not based in that technical science.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?

That is a red herring. The technicality of astronomy has nothing to do with the origins of the big bang as you implied.

?????????????? Again, I'm not following you at all.

No. I am saying there are two logical conclusions for origins: there are no origins (infinite regression), or something began to exist. I find the idea that nothing caused the existence of everything to be nonsensical.

What if it turns out that scientists can indeed explain the origin of the universe without having to inject God? Would you declare it to be nonsense no matter what?

That is not what you were claiming and you know it. You made it sound like it was too technical to wrap our heads around.

Sorry, but that's just your own insecurities talking. I never said anything like that. Just because you take a benign statement like "this is a technical subject" as a personal insult to your intelligence, that doesn't mean that's what the speaker intended.

..when the fact is, the big bang assumes a cause but does not explain it. Thus, it is not an explanation for origins as you claim your friends would assert.

Again you seem to be rooting against science here.

1. I'm being intentionally sarcastic.

That was obvious, but your sarcasm betrays a "rooting against science" attitude on your part. Phrases like "Good thing we have modern cosmology to straighten out the ignorant Christians on that issue" show both insecurity and a dislike of science.

2. You seem to prefer scientific claims of ignorance to biblical claims of origins. This seems to be a theme with you. I think you are too fixed on being well thought of in the world of "science" (which we already both agreed is not part of the big bang theory and the science behind it).

Not every Christian forces themselves into such a black/white decision. Some of us believe science is a way for us to discover the wonders of God's creation.

"nothing caused everything" is a completely honest and accurate statement.

Ok then.

According to all the material I have read on this, once you go back to the original "particle" of the universe, the laws of the universe no longer exist (since the particle caused the universe and its laws). Thus, science does not apply where the laws were supposedly not in existence or just being formed. If you have some suggested reading material, I am always eager to learn.

I suggest you read up on quantum mechanics and the role it plays at the singularity. I don't have anything specific in mind for you to read.

I am not opposed to study or opposed to concepts that may be beyond my level of expertise. I am opposed to someone claiming that their view on origins is beyond unscientific Christians when, in reality, everyone who writes on the theory claims that it is no explanation of origins. Thus, their being "offended" by such as statement is either due to their ignorance or just some misleading, arrogant rubbish.

Yeah....I get the sense that you get offended at a lot of things.

 

[Wormwood]

And do you agree that a certain amount of study is required to properly grasp it?

Of course. Do you agree that the science of astronomy is not an explanation of origins of the big bang, nor is it intended to be?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?

You made this statement about my statement of "it all came from nothing without purpose or order": "And that would likely irritate this guy...."everything from nothing" is a common (and ignorant) creationist straw man of modern cosmology."

The quotes I gave showed that "modern cosmology" and its discussion on the big bang have relatively nothing to do with the cause of the big bang. You are making claims that "everything from nothing" claims are ignorant of cosmology. Yet cosmology isn't about the cause of the universe. So your claim that my statement would be seen as "ignorant" by these scientifically minded fellows is ironical since the science behind the big bang theory has nothing to do with its cause. Does this make sense?

That was obvious, but your sarcasm betrays a "rooting against science" attitude on your part. Phrases like "Good thing we have modern cosmology to straighten out the ignorant Christians on that issue" show both insecurity and a dislike of science.

I'm not rooting against science. I'm saying your claims of "science" have nothing to do with the cause of the universe. Again, its a red herring. Why are you throwing out claims about science when the science isn't even aimed at the issue I am discussing?! Scientists claim they don't know what caused the big bang, nor are they even seeking to explain that question. So why are you bringing it up and claiming my statement is "ignorant" of a science that doesn't even exist!?

Not every Christian forces themselves into such a black/white decision. Some of us believe science is a way for us to discover the wonders of God's creation.

It seems pretty simple to me. Either God is the first cause, matter is eternal, or nothing spawned the particle that exploded and brought us all into existence. I dont think the latter two coincide with the idea of a "creator" that spoke the universe into existence. Not to mention that eternal regression or nothing spawning the first particle that exploded into the universe takes greater faith than believing in God, imho. Are there other options I am not aware of that you could share with me?

Yeah....I get the sense that you get offended at a lot of things.

I was referring to your atheist friends who would be offended by my summary of the origins of the universe being nothing or eternal regression. If they are offended at the summary, its probably because they don't understand the issues at hand.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

Actually, scientists are working on figuring out the cause of the big bang. I don't know where you got the idea that they weren't. I mean, it's a big reason why Stephen Hawking is such a famous cosmologist (and yes, cosmology is the field of science that works on this question).

And no, I don't subscribe to your black/white thinking where either God was the cause of the big bang or it happened naturally. For me those two are not at all mutually exclusive, in the same way that explaining why rocks roll downhill (gravity) doesn't rule out God. The universe itself is a revelation from God so when we study it, we can't be afraid of what we might find.