The Big Bang and the Big Question: A Universe without God?

Aish ^ | Lawrence Kelemen

[Dimensio]

From the point of view of science it makes no difference if the universe was created last Thursday,

Whaddya mean if?

[Dimensio]

Saying "God" may be a short answer, but a simple one? Only to a simpleton.

This depends on how "God" is defined. I've actually seen some people try to define "God" as all of the unknowns in the universe. With this definition, it's incredibly simple because this "God" exists so long as something within the universe is unknown. Of course, this definition is totally worthless and misleading, and it implies no special qualities of this "God", including sentience. Of course, this person then tried to equivocate this definition of "God" with the Christian one, wherein he instantly invoked the equivocation fallacy and destroyed his argument. It is not a "simple" explanation to use the lack of absolute knowledge of the workings of the universe as "evidence" for the existence of the Christian God (or any specific deity, for that matter). That's an assertion without any foundation in logic.

[Dimensio]

Sorry, I would think that the existance of God would directly relate to evolution.

Well, you would think incorrectly, then.

Particularly, as the discussion related to the Genesis

I didn't see how the article was trying to support a literal interpretation of Genesis. I'll reread it to see if such an implication is there.

[azhenfud]

"If there need be a creator, the same question applies to that creator--where did the matter or energy (or whatever) come from to create the creator? If you say the creator was always there, then why cannot that same answer apply to the universe."

Not true in the eternal sense - it's only true in the physical realm which we're confined.

Genesis Ch. 1 V. 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

This beginning is that of our Universe and not that of the Creator. He told Moses through the burning bush "I AM THAT I AM" revealing His constant, unchanging nature.

Time had no meaning until the Sovereign placed the Universe into existence, and as thus the Creator is not bound to the laws of the Universe, but the Universe to the laws of its Creator.

There's an often overlooked verse in Ecclesiastes Ch 3 that says "That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.", which reveals to us that time is not in linear form, but in a comprehensive form to the Creator. IOW, similar to the saying "on the outside looking in."

[Dimensio]

Based of the facts that one theory ends in death, and one perpetuates life, I choose life. Thank you Jesus.

Ah, argument from wishful thinking. Not a common fallacy, because most people realise right away that it is totally devoid of logic.

[Capitalism2003]

I think theory #3 is correct, and was proven several months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Dimensio]

Of course this thread will probably be deluged with evolutionist zealots attacking you

Nothing in his article addresses evolution. I don't see why you think that it would be a target for such an attack.

[js1138]

I forgot you were tha founding prophet of Last Thursdayism. Sorry.

[lilylangtree]

I can't go in depth since Missler's program is 1/2 hour and very generalized thinking today by way of introducing his topic. He dealt primarily with the expanding universe and the scientific studies that proved this. He goes on that by very nature of an expanding universe suggests that the universe is finite, having a beginning and an end. Further, the topic dealt with energy, matter, space and time being measured and thereby related. For 1/2 hour program, that's all I can remember of relevance. He'll be on tomorrow for further listening. As a matter of fact he'll be on tonight at 5:00 p.m. replaying this morning's 8:00 a.m. program.

[Dimensio]

I forgot you were tha founding prophet of Last Thursdayism. Sorry.

That honour goes to the fortunate slave of Queen Maeve, Michael Keene. I am but a humble servant of the feline race.

[plain talk]

That's kind of an old question that sort of makes sense on a shallow human level. No one can really fathom eternity. So the question is understandable. But it's somewhat shallow. It says that if one cannot figure it all out and apply the same consistent reasoning to how man or God got here then we should reject the concept that the universe was created.

We can not understand God or comment on his origin. We cannot even understand the creation much less the creator. So first things first. But we can comment on what we observe and what has been observed by others. I don't need to know why the sky is blue or came to be blue to know that it is blue.

God is spirit and man is matter. In the universe we observe the result of intelligent design that is so obvious even we humans can observe it. In fact the designs are so blatant it's as if the creator wanted us to see them once we matured as a people to some level. We also have evidence of God's direct interaction with us via OT prophets and Jesus Christ.

On the nature of God Himself all we have are the scriptures which reveal much about God's personality and character and point out that God eternal and timeless. As a Clint Eastwood character once said, "a man has to know his limitations".

[Van Jenerette]

Both Risen Apes and Fallen Angles have an origin. Whether a big or little bang answers the question of that origin is in the end relative only to the size of the universe.

No matter how much knowledge we gain, Doubt is central to Faith because until the end of time, man will remain the only creature who has the power to define himself for himself.

Things would be so much easier if Eve had never bit the apple...Knowledge and choice can be cruel masters.

[kkindt]

Dear Abby,
Once upon a nothing
Something blew apart?
I'm just a big bang nothing?
But wow, what interesting parts!
Confused

[kkindt]

The wishful thinking could be in reverse? Wishing there weren't a Creator to whom you are responsible? Not so?

Wishful thinking doesn't mean something is not true - or else what about you?

You surely don't wish there is a God to whom you must pray and to whom you are responsible, do you? SO you wish the opposite - so you can be supposedly free to be whatever you want to be.

[VRWC_minion]

Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest of these 3 is Love.

The big three that supply a stumbling block to rational explanations.

[showme_the_Glory]

You'll be taking your logic to your grave. Logic and truth are not one in the same. I'll stick with my choice. Have a nice logical life here on earth. I hope to meet you in heaven.

[RRWCC]

My apologies. Wrong place, wrong time.

I'm out of this one...

[mdmathis6]

And this discontinuity came from what.....?

[RightWhale]

this discontinuity came from what.....?

Sorry, sonny.

.

It's turtles,

.

all

.

the

.

way

.

down.

[f.Christian]

"One irony of this painstakingly cautious approach is that ... naturalism may die of natural causes --- before ID advocates reach steps two or three. In the upper echelons of research and scholarship, naturalistic theories’ frailty is more and more freely acknowledged. Even if ID proponents do nothing to expose the inadequacies and inconsistencies of its explanation for the cosmos and life, naturalism may self-destruct."

"Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. Such a model does not lend itself to verification, nor can it make specific, credible predictions. On both counts, scholars, particularly scientists, would be reluctant to acknowledge the concept’s viability and give it serious attention. Nor does this approach offer them spiritual direction."

"As I speak on university campuses and elsewhere, I see a larger challenge to Christianity than naturalism: the challenge of a vague or idiosyncratic spirituality, faith detached from objective truth and legitimate spiritual authority. In fact, virtually all forms of spirituality except Christianity seem in vogue with the new “spiritual” people, who tend to be less receptive than nontheists to the Christian gospel. In other words, leading a nontheist to a belief in an “intelligent designer” could do more spiritual harm than good."