The Strongest Argument for God

[Kenny]

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. The current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high-temperature initial state of the universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And so, what do comologists (or Wikipedia) say the age of the universe is?

Do you understand how this is determined?

They say the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. As far as the age of the singularity before it expanded, nobody knows. If you consider the expansion of the singularity (the big bang)the beginning of the Universe, then 13.8 million years would be your answer. But it seems to me the singularity was the Universe, just in a different form.

Well, the irony is, I'd agree the Universe existed in a different form, albeit one of a potential form from an Actualiser who actualised such.

If an explosion happened that flung things everywhere and noone was around to see it.... but, scientists came along and were able to measure the microwave heat leftovers back to an infinitesimal point where it was hotter and more dense. Would it not be a flagrant violation of logic and reason to assume this singularity point just existed forever, rather than to believe something actualised the point into existence which then exploded outwards (or rapidly expanded)?

They say it was more of an expansion than an explosion despite the name. But science estimates they only know of approx 4% of the universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So if we assume the 96% that we have no clue about is consistent with the 4% we DO know about, perhaps it would be a violation of reason and logic to assume the singularity existed forever before one day deciding to expand. But I a not willing to make such an assumption; perhaps there is something within that 96% that we have no clue about where it all makes sense. That is why I prefer to admit I don’t have an answer rather than accept what you guys speculate as the answer.

[Kurieuo]

One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. The current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high-temperature initial state of the universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And so, what do comologists (or Wikipedia) say the age of the universe is?

Do you understand how this is determined?

They say the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. As far as the age of the singularity before it expanded, nobody knows. If you consider the expansion of the singularity (the big bang)the beginning of the Universe, then 13.8 million years would be your answer. But it seems to me the singularity was the Universe, just in a different form.

Well, the irony is, I'd agree the Universe existed in a different form, albeit one of a potential form from an Actualiser who actualised such.

If an explosion happened that flung things everywhere and noone was around to see it.... but, scientists came along and were able to measure the microwave heat leftovers back to an infinitesimal point where it was hotter and more dense. Would it not be a flagrant violation of logic and reason to assume this singularity point just existed forever, rather than to believe something actualised the point into existence which then exploded outwards (or rapidly expanded)?

They say it was more of an expansion than an explosion despite the name. But science estimates they only know of approx 4% of the universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So if we assume the 96% that we have no clue about is consistent with the 4% we DO know about, perhaps it would be a violation of reason and logic to assume the singularity existed forever before one day deciding to expand. But I a not willing to make such an assumption; perhaps there is something within that 96% that we have no clue about where it all makes sense. That is why I prefer to admit I don’t have an answer rather than accept what you guys speculate as the answer.

Expansion/explosion, my words accounted for both. What we do know about the expanding Universe works essentially the same as an explosion. What is an explosion, if not a very rapid and seemingly chaotic EXPANSION from a very hot point?

We can detect/see the microwave heat signatures, and if followed backwards they get smaller and smaller, infinitesimally smaller and hotter. This is what we'd see if the heat signatures of a bomb going off were measured -- it'd be followed backward to an infinitesimally small ignition point from which it expanded and heat dispersed. The analogy holds very well, and hence why cosmological theory was termed "Big Bang".

Now, it'd be rather stupid I think for someone to say, "Nah, there was no ignition -- an infinitesimally small and hot point was around forever and then just rapidly exploded/expanded." I'd find such an incredibly foolish thing to say if someone said that about a bomb, and knowing the same logic essentially applies to the Universe I also find it a foolish thing to say there as well.

Reason based upon the observable evidence suggests there was a spark/activation which caused an ignition point, out of which the heat, matter and energy expanded out from. Noone seriously believes the universe as the point of singularity just existed forever, except in some sort of twisted atheist apologetic that begs to be believed -- which is why the scientific community sets an AGE to the universe rather than labelling it ETERNAL (as was believed early 20th century).

Re: your 4% knowledge versus 96% knowledge, why I've heard YECs use such a line as well. So I guess you're in "good" company.

[Philip]

Kenny, singularity itself is NOT the universe. While the universe came from a point of singularity, one might debate where whatever that singularity was comprised of came from. But it's clear that the universe itself did not exist prior to the Big Bang's beginning - which was also the universe's beginning.

[Kenny]

And so, what do comologists (or Wikipedia) say the age of the universe is?

Do you understand how this is determined?

They say the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. As far as the age of the singularity before it expanded, nobody knows. If you consider the expansion of the singularity (the big bang)the beginning of the Universe, then 13.8 million years would be your answer. But it seems to me the singularity was the Universe, just in a different form.

Well, the irony is, I'd agree the Universe existed in a different form, albeit one of a potential form from an Actualiser who actualised such.

If an explosion happened that flung things everywhere and noone was around to see it.... but, scientists came along and were able to measure the microwave heat leftovers back to an infinitesimal point where it was hotter and more dense. Would it not be a flagrant violation of logic and reason to assume this singularity point just existed forever, rather than to believe something actualised the point into existence which then exploded outwards (or rapidly expanded)?

They say it was more of an expansion than an explosion despite the name. But science estimates they only know of approx 4% of the universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So if we assume the 96% that we have no clue about is consistent with the 4% we DO know about, perhaps it would be a violation of reason and logic to assume the singularity existed forever before one day deciding to expand. But I a not willing to make such an assumption; perhaps there is something within that 96% that we have no clue about where it all makes sense. That is why I prefer to admit I don’t have an answer rather than accept what you guys speculate as the answer.

Expansion/explosion, my words accounted for both. What we do know about the expanding Universe works essentially the same as an explosion. What is an explosion, if not a very rapid and seemingly chaotic EXPANSION from a very hot point?

We can detect/see the microwave heat signatures, and if followed backwards they get smaller and smaller, infinitesimally smaller and hotter. This is what we'd see if the heat signatures of a bomb going off were measured -- it'd be followed backward to an infinitesimally small ignition point from which it expanded and heat dispersed. The analogy holds very well, and hence why cosmological theory was termed "Big Bang".

Now, it'd be rather stupid I think for someone to say, "Nah, there was no ignition -- an infinitesimally small and hot point was around forever and then just rapidly exploded/expanded." I'd find such an incredibly foolish thing to say if someone said that about a bomb, and knowing the same logic essentially applies to the Universe I also find it a foolish thing to say there as well.

You say that because from what we know on Earth, small and hot points do not exist forever then all of a sudden just rapidly explode and expand, so judging from what you know, you find it foolish to believe this would happen with the Universe.
Judging from what I know on Earth, intelligent beings don’t live eternally then all of a sudden just decide to create a hot point and cause it to expand or explode, so I would find it foolish to believe this would happen with the Universe.
Whatever happened back then, logic based on what we currently know about the Universe is not going to get us very far; we’re missing an essential piece of the puzzle and until someone finds it the origin of the Universe will appear to defy logic.

Reason based upon the observable evidence suggests there was a spark/activation which caused an ignition point, out of which the heat, matter and energy expanded out from. Noone seriously believes the universe as the point of singularity just existed forever, except in some sort of twisted atheist apologetic that begs to be believed -- which is why the scientific community sets an AGE to the universe rather than labelling it ETERNAL (as was believed early 20th century).

Re: your 4% knowledge versus 96% knowledge, why I've heard YECs use such a line as well. So I guess you're in "good" company.

Ya know; even a broken clock can be right twice a day

[Kurieuo]

Let my previously written words speak for me.

If you want a summary, then I'd put it like this. Based upon all we do in fact know, all physical heat and energy expands and can be traced to a source. If we observe an exploding bomb from which heat and energy expands out from, it would be traced back to the point of ignition. The Universe which we know also to be expanding, if we measure backwards we get as far back as 1 planck due and not further due to current physics, and hence cosmologists broadly believe the Universe is around 13 billion years old (not eternal).

On the other hand, you postulate something other in the face of stuff we do know, to plead that contrary to how physics works and where the physical evidence logically leads, that the Universe most definitely wasn't "ignited" but is eternal and just began expanding due to some reason we don't know due to our apparent 96% lack of understanding.

[Kenny]

Let my previously written words speak for me.

If you want a summary, then I'd put it like this. Based upon all we do in fact know, all physical heat and energy expands and can be traced to a source. If we observe an exploding bomb from which heat and energy expands out from, it would be traced back to the point of ignition. The Universe which we know also to be expanding, if we measure backwards we get as far back as 1 planck due and not further due to current physics, and hence cosmologists broadly believe the Universe is around 13 billion years old (not eternal).

On the other hand, you postulate something other in the face of stuff we do know, to plead that contrary to how physics works and where the physical evidence logically leads, that the Universe most definitely wasn't "ignited" but is eternal and just began expanding due to some reason we don't know due to our apparent 96% lack of understanding.

So let me see if I've gotten this straight. I admit to not having an answer (something cosmologists admit) but is willing to express what sounds reasonable, and you on the other hand postulate something that flies in the face of what Cosmologists do know; believing an eternal being not only exists, but is intelligent and started the entire process himself! And you justify this belief by saying science is not in a position to provide all the answers, so rather than admit to not having all the answers, you just sorta fill in the gaps left by science with the God of the Bible.
Is that it? Or did I leave anything out???

[PaulSacramento]

Humm; let me guess... God is the only one who is not contingent thus has no cause, and God is the only one who didn't come into existence, everything else did. Is that correct? If so, how is that different from when I said an exception is made for God because he is uncaused, everything else is caused? And how does this refute the objections I mentioned?

First off, no one said that everything else is caused, you said that.

What it says is that, things that are caused, that come into being, that are contingent on something else, have a cause and that cause, unless you have infinite regression ( which explains nothing of course), must be itself, uncaused.
The reason we call that Uncaused Cause God is because of that an uncaused cause MUST be ( its attributes), but that is another point that can only be understood IF you understand why there must be an uncaused or first cause.

[Kenny]

Humm; let me guess... God is the only one who is not contingent thus has no cause, and God is the only one who didn't come into existence, everything else did. Is that correct? If so, how is that different from when I said an exception is made for God because he is uncaused, everything else is caused? And how does this refute the objections I mentioned?

First off, no one said that everything else is caused, you said that.

Oh so according to you there are other things that are uncaused? Like what?

The reason we call that Uncaused Cause God is because of that an uncaused cause MUST be ( its attributes), but that is another point that can only be understood IF you understand why there must be an uncaused or first cause.

So are all of those other uncaused causes you eluded to, God as well?

[Philip]

Kurieuo to Ken: On the other hand, you ... hereafter!

Ken: So let me see if I've gotten this straight. I admit to not having an answer (something cosmologists admit) but is willing to express what sounds reasonable, and you on the other hand postulate something that flies in the face of what Cosmologists do know; believing an eternal being not only exists, but is intelligent and started the entire process himself!

NO! NO! NO! ALL we get from science is massive evidences that what showed up (and HAD to show up) to produce what exists. This tells us only three, related but powerful things: SOMETHING was eternal to jumpstart the universe - as the sophistication and complexity of the first things' designs and their functionalities, interactivities and precision cannot be explained without an intelligent cause. It is totally irrational to conclude otherwise. We know that the Big Bang erupted with such massive power, on such a massive scale that the cause had to be unfathomably powerful! But the power was entirely controlled as it was unified in purpose and the marvelous things of designs and functionalities it propelled. Again, it was NOT an explosion / destructive force, but instead a very precise, unified, and incredibly complex expansion of things incredibly sophisticated. These things require intelligence - no matter what we might think that intelligence was or is, it is clear that a superior intelligence was required to produce and control the Big Bang event. But the scientific evidences don't tell us WHO or WHAT the cause was, but it DOES show the universe's source had to have certain characteristics and abilities.

Ken to Kurieuo: And you justify this belief by saying science is not in a position to provide all the answers, so rather than admit to not having all the answers, you just sorta fill in the gaps left by science with the God of the Bible.
Is that it? Or did I leave anything out???

Ken, you continuously and wrongly morph the two questions together, because you are determined to deny God! You deny that science shows great evidence of an intelligence in the many amazing designs, operations, and unbelievable precision of the universe - even from its first moments. And while these many evidences do not PROVE that the cause of the universe was the God of the Bible, they do, however, reveal the necessary characteristics required to produce what came immediately into existence, its designs, and how it all functioned and interacted, DO match up with the abilities and intentions of God of the Bible. And, the universe that resulted included THE precise things needed to eventually produce a planet that could support life - and what happened in even the first moments of the Big Bang were required in order to do so.

And of all living creatures, amongst the vast millions of species, there is only one like man - not another creature remotely close to us in intelligence or ability. And so what was produced also well matches up with the intentions noted of God in the Bible. Now, still, a skeptic might point out that the universe's cause might be another entity with God-like capabilities - that it is not necessarily the God of the Bible. And that is another question - one could look at the details in the Bible to see what matches up with history, prophecy, Biblical claims, etc. And one can additionally seek the God of the Bible - to see if He responds or answers (while not expecting a "voice from above" to do so). Etc. But the IDENTITY of the universe's cause - that is a totally secondary question that science cannot answer! So stop morphing the two issues: What the Big Bang showed us - and then, WHAT or WHO is the identity of the creative source of the universe - as these are separate issues. BTW, science cannot prove OR DISPROVE God's existence. But at least be honest about what the universe and the Big Bang DOES show us, and what the characteristics of the Cause of it HAD to include - given the universe that sprang from the Big Bang.

Ken, also, realize that one can process the evidence in different ways - and billions do. And again, very few are atheists or agnostics, compared to most others. And yet, we all have available the very same evidences. So, it is disingenuous to constantly state, "Science doesn't assert an intelligent cause for the universe" - of course it doesn't - because it can't do that! Just like you always say how much there is that we still don't know that science has no answers for. Nonetheless, science HAS shown us a vast number of incredible evidences that perfectly match up with an intelligent cause, and that makes it perfectly reasonable to conclude it - especially true when realizes the immense, improbable odds of certain things even coming into existence, much less occurring or functioning as they do, without intelligent guidance.

[Philip]

Just because science cannot prove God or the identity of the cause of the universe DOES NOT mean that the scientific evidences don't show its cause had to be eternal, intelligent, and insanely powerful! Science knows little definitive about black holes - but it has much evidence of their existence because of what is observed near and in front of them!

[Kurieuo]

Let my previously written words speak for me.

If you want a summary, then I'd put it like this. Based upon all we do in fact know, all physical heat and energy expands and can be traced to a source. If we observe an exploding bomb from which heat and energy expands out from, it would be traced back to the point of ignition. The Universe which we know also to be expanding, if we measure backwards we get as far back as 1 planck due and not further due to current physics, and hence cosmologists broadly believe the Universe is around 13 billion years old (not eternal).

On the other hand, you postulate something other in the face of stuff we do know, to plead that contrary to how physics works and where the physical evidence logically leads, that the Universe most definitely wasn't "ignited" but is eternal and just began expanding due to some reason we don't know due to our apparent 96% lack of understanding.

So let me see if I've gotten this straight. I admit to not having an answer (something cosmologists admit) but is willing to express what sounds reasonable, and you on the other hand postulate something that flies in the face of what Cosmologists do know; believing an eternal being not only exists, but is intelligent and started the entire process himself! And you justify this belief by saying science is not in a position to provide all the answers, so rather than admit to not having all the answers, you just sorta fill in the gaps left by science with the God of the Bible.
Is that it? Or did I leave anything out???

All I'm saying is that the POTENTIALITY of the EXPANSION from a infinitesimal hot point requires SOMETHING external to have ACTIVATED its potentiality. Seems you're telling me this something must have been God.

I'm happy for you that, in the irony of your statements, you appear to realise and make the connection that such implies God's existence. Really, I'd love to be having discussions with you hereafter in eternity.

[Kenny]

Kurieuo to Ken: On the other hand, you ... hereafter!

Ken: So let me see if I've gotten this straight. I admit to not having an answer (something cosmologists admit) but is willing to express what sounds reasonable, and you on the other hand postulate something that flies in the face of what Cosmologists do know; believing an eternal being not only exists, but is intelligent and started the entire process himself!

NO! NO! NO! ALL we get from science is massive evidences that what showed up (and HAD to show up) to produce what exists.

Again; scientific evidence does not say if anything showed up, (a gap) so you insert God.

This tells us only three, related but powerful things: SOMETHING was eternal to jumpstart the universe -

Oh so the Universe was “jumpstarted” by something eternal? let’s be clear about this; There isn’t any scientific evidence to support this right?

as the sophistication and complexity of the first things' designs and their functionalities, interactivities and precision cannot be explained without an intelligent cause. It is totally irrational to conclude otherwise.

No it is not irrational to dismiss an empty claim.

We know that the Big Bang erupted with such massive power, on such a massive scale that the cause had to be unfathomably powerful! But the power was entirely controlled as it was unified in purpose and the marvelous things of designs and functionalities it propelled.

Is this just another empty claim? Or can you site a scientific theory to support this?

Again, it was NOT an explosion / destructive force, but instead a very precise, unified, and incredibly complex expansion of things incredibly sophisticated. These things require intelligence - no matter what we might think that intelligence was or is, it is clear that a superior intelligence was required to produce and control the Big Bang event.

Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. Unless you can site a source to support this claim, I will assume there is no science to back up any of these claims you’ve made so far so let’s quit pretending you’re talking science here. But the scientific evidences don't tell us WHO or WHAT the cause was, but it DOES show the universe's source had to have certain characteristics and abilities.

Ken to Kurieuo: And you justify this belief by saying science is not in a position to provide all the answers, so rather than admit to not having all the answers, you just sorta fill in the gaps left by science with the God of the Bible.
Is that it? Or did I leave anything out???

Ken, also, realize that one can process the evidence in different ways - and billions do. And again, very few are atheists or agnostics, compared to most others. And yet, we all have available the very same evidences.

We all have available the same evidences, but those who study the evidences to see where it leads (scientists) they make up a higher percentage of atheists and agnostics than those who don’t study the evidence. That should tell you something.

So, it is disingenuous to constantly state, "Science doesn't assert an intelligent cause for the universe" - of course it doesn't - because it can't do that!

They could if there were evidence for an intelligent cause for the Universe! Because there is no evidence for these claims you make, science cannot support them.

[Kenny]

Just because science cannot prove God or the identity of the cause of the universe DOES NOT mean that the scientific evidences don't show its cause had to be eternal,

Whatever evidence YOU see from science is just that; your evidence, not science.

intelligent, and insanely powerful! Science knows little definitive about black holes - but it has much evidence of their existence because of what is observed near and in front of them!

But it wouldn't be right to make stuff up about black holes that is not supported by science, and speak of it as if it were science.

[Philip]

Ken: But it wouldn't be right to make stuff up about black holes that is not supported by science, and speak of it as if it were science.

No, it would not be okay to simply invent stuff. But you should know by now that the evidence showing key attributes of what the universe required to begin as it did is not made up. And certain logical conclusions can be made about the characteristics of the Cause. But those scientific evidences don't prove this was the God of the Bible - that takes deeper understandings from a variety of things. But just because you reject that the evidence points to God, it is irrational to believe what you do otherwise. Because, Ken, it's obvious that you reject the clear indications of an eternal, intelligent cause for the universe - and you do so NOT because the science evidence is made up - but because you reject the idea of a personal, living God. You need to stop confusing the two issues! The science speaks for itself. It is foolish to reject what it clearly reveals, even if you think the identity of the Cause isn't God.

Why are you making a commentary upon the scientific evidence - and dismissing what is shows - by connecting it to the Bible's assertions?

[Kenny]

Ken: But it wouldn't be right to make stuff up about black holes that is not supported by science, and speak of it as if it were science.

No, it would not be okay to simply invent stuff. But you should know by now that the evidence showing key attributes of what the universe required to begin as it did is not made up.

What key attributes? That the Singularity expanded?

And certain logical conclusions can be made about the characteristics of the Cause.

Yeah; that it expanded. Anything else is speculation

But those scientific evidences don't prove this was the God of the Bible - that takes deeper understandings from a variety of things.

It doesn't prove an intelligent being was involved either. If it did those who came up with the theory would have included it in the theory.

But just because you reject that the evidence points to God, it is irrational to believe what you do otherwise.

Seems I'm not the only one who reject this, seems those who came up with the theory reject it as well! What does that tell you?

Because, Ken, it's obvious that you reject the clear indications of an eternal, intelligent cause for the universe -

I reject it for the same reason cosmologists reject it; lack of evidence.

and you do so NOT because the science evidence is made up - but because you reject the idea of a personal, living God.

No I reject it because the claim is false. I am more interested in the truth than your personal agenda.

You need to stop confusing the two issues! The science speaks for itself. It is foolish to reject what it clearly reveals, even if you think the identity of the Cause isn't God.

You need to either point to a scientific theory that supports your claim or quit pretending scientific evidence points to the God you worship

Why are you making a commentary upon the scientific evidence - and dismissing what is shows - by connecting it to the Bible's assertions?

I'n not dismissing what science shows, I'm dismissing your claim which has nothing to do with science, and I dismiss it for the same reason cosmologists and other scientists dismiss it.