theism, atheism, & big bang theory

F

fadingCaptain

are you a robot?
Valued Senior Member
Hello all this is my first post. I found these forums a cpl days ago by accident and find them right up my alley so to speak.

I am currently reading a book titled 'theism, atheism, and big bang cosmology'. It is split into several sections in which a theist (William Craig) and an atheist(Quentin Smith) engage in a debate regarding current big bang theory and whether it supports or weakens the possiblity of the existense of (a)god.

Has anyone read this book? I would like to know your comments if so. It is a little dated but still has some interesting discussion. If you haven't read the book, I would still like to know your thoughts on the following question:

- Assuming Big Bang as a credible theory for how the universe came into being, does it strengthen, weaken, or not affect the possibility of a first cause(god)?

I know there are many theories other than Big Bang and much else that could be discussed, but I want to keep the discussion to that question if possible...

Thanks,
fc
 
I don't believe it affects the debate on whether or not there is a God.

Well, no, I shouldn't say that. It gives some backing to atheism, but it in no way proves there is no God. All it does is give us another option to a higher being creating the universe.
 
The big bang theory dosen't disprove god but it does remove the need for a god to explain the origins of the universe. I tend to think that once god is unnessesary why keep believing in him?
 
The big bang theory, as presently formulated, does not describe anything which happened in the universe prior to 10<sup>-43</sup> seconds after the beginning. That leaves room for a God to start the process off.

Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of God. That is a religious or philosophical question.
 
BANG!

I think what is really interesting is not if it helps one side or another, but what happened after the theory was put forth into the mainstream.

The pope at the time said it was good for Catholics to study the Big Bang, because of its similarity to the Bible's "let there be light". Stephen Hawking decided that he didn't like the idea of a universe with a beginning and proposed his imaginary time theory in his book, "A Brief History of Time" to try and get around having a beginning to the universe.

I see many atheists go for a cyclical model like the one proposed recently which will produce some kind of gravity waves throughout the universe. Or atheists go for the idea of parallel universes or a multiverse. I tend to like the provable ideas more than the unprovable ones. As far as simplicity is concerned, an infinity of universes begins to look as complex as an infinite supreme being. Both of these go to support the idea that randomness and luck can account for any amount of what may seem like intelligent design.

Still, some creationists argue that God created everything 10,000 years ago, and just made it *look* old, like some kind of cosmic joke played on everyone. So they deny the Big Bang vehemently, arguing that it takes more "faith" to believe that the entire universe was tiny at some point in the past than it does to believe in God. Of course, redshifts and cosmic background radiation aren't enough to convince them otherwise.
 
Dan,

But even so I still find Alan Guth’s proposition of an infinity of bubble universes the most satisfying explanation of the universe that I have seen.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html

As far as simplicity is concerned, an infinity of universes begins to look as complex as an infinite supreme being.
Click to expand...
I will admit that the concept of an infinite number of parallel universes rivals the concept of the supernatural and seems equally incredible since both require the acceptance of something quite extraordinary and far beyond the known laws of physics. But at least the multiple bubble concept remains within the realm of the natural, and Guth provides a quite credible explanation and does not stretch the known laws too far in stating his theory. His book –

"The Inflationary Universe : The Quest for a New Theory of cosmic Origins"

Is a very good read.

But at some point we must accept that something infinite must exist, either a stable universe or a creating force, since there has to be something before something else, and that invariably leads to an infinite series.

Cris
 
Here's my theory. The universe needed no cause. I believe time did not exist before the Big Bang, therefor it is meaningless to ask what happened "before" it. The universe has literally been around forever because forever can only go back to the point time started (the Big Bang). This rules out the need for a God to start the whole thing off.
 
I choose to take an indifferent stance in reguards to the big bang theory. Not because I I disagree/agree with it, but because I don't know the theory well enough to make a confident discision on my part.

However, just because I don't know it very well, doesn't mean I am inclined at all to make the leap to a diety of some kind. And, of course, if their is a God, I must ask

Which one? The Christian God? The Hindu Gods? Allah? Mithras? Ahura Mazda?

When you string out all the religions that exist today, and the ones that have existed in times past, the idea for a " God " tends to lose it's substance completely. You might has well try to strech a thing of Nickelodian Gak across the state of Texas

-Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top