Evidence for God from Science

It's about a attempted atheist response or rebuttal to the idea that the Big Bang or singularity implies the existence of a creator and or God. It's called the "No Boundary Principle" It means basically that the point or singularity itself is eternal, and when it had some kind of odd movement or reaction it triggered the big bang and thus the origin of the universe. I was wondering, how do we as theists normally respond to that? I'd appreciate anything you can offer. Thanks again for your time and God bless.

derrick09 wrote:It's about a attempted atheist response or rebuttal to the idea that the Big Bang or singularity implies the existence of a creator and or God. It's called the "No Boundary Principle" It means basically that the point or singularity itself is eternal, and when it had some kind of odd movement or reaction it triggered the big bang and thus the origin of the universe. I was wondering, how do we as theists normally respond to that? I'd appreciate anything you can offer. Thanks again for your time and God bless.

Oh sure... No boundaries. Some kind of odd movement? Like a force? But it's not God..

Let's see, have you ever heard of it? And if so is there any good counterarguements or counterevidence to this? Thanks again G. Take care.

derrick09 wrote:Let's see, have you ever heard of it? And if so is there any good counterarguements or counterevidence to this? Thanks again G. Take care.

Look's like a repackaged product to me... Same ingredients, just mixed differently. Nothing new here...

Sorry for the cheap answer.

Well thank you Gman regardless of the answer's relative cheapness? Anyone else want to chime in?

To me these arguments are purely cop outs .

They are all about physical, observable evidence. But when it comes to the ultimate question they suddenly stumble into meta physic and blind assumptions and are completely comfortable with it

derrick09 wrote: I was wondering, how do we as theists normally respond to that?

I burst out laughing!

Then I apologised. It isn't nice to ridicule another's groping at truth.

FL

Thanks again for your responses, I hope that this atheist argument that I was sharing was insignificant enough to get such short and rather passive answers. I'm kind of scared that maybe this argument may be a very tough one to respond to and you all were just "dodging the question" sort of like what many YECs do when pressed with the overwhelming evidence for a ancient earth and universe. I hope it's the former rather than the latter. But regardless, I may ask the fine folks as reasons.org and see if they can help. But anyway thanks again.

Hi derrick...if anyone - atheist, theist, deist, whatever - says that they know what happened before the big bang then they are speaking way beyond the currently available evidence. Such ideas are a bit like string theory in that the mathematical models hold up to scrutiny, but they are quite a way from being testable.

Such ideas about what happened prior to the big bang may spark some fruitful lines of scientific inquiry but, as it stands, they are just that; ideas.

Basically this is the problem with that theory. You have to address the question why did anything happen at all? Why didn't the singularity just stay a singularity forever? Also when talking about time - eternal things cannot exist and it is impossible for even a singularity to have an eternal past. If you have something with an eternal past then you will never arrive at the present. So the singularity will have to be timeless then (one of the qualities of God) and exist outside our time frame - so then that begs the question what prompted it to suddenly create the dimension of time and why - and also with all the fine tuning requirements for a universe that is just right to support intelligent life on this insignificant spec of dust. So really if the singularity never had a beginning then really there is not reason why the universe is here at all. Also is there any supporting evidence for this theory.

Hawking tried to come up with a theory that did away with the beginning of the the singularity, but he had to apply imaginary numbers in order to do it. Many other theories have arrived to try and do away with the beginning of the universe and each one as failed. The latest - string theory is vastly speculative and is really entering the realm of metaphysics. Me think some scientists does protest too much...

Hope that helps

God Bless

SIlvertusk.

derrick09 wrote:Let's see, have you ever heard of it? And if so is there any good counterarguements or counterevidence to this? Thanks again G. Take care.

"Counterarguments" and "counterevidence" suggests you have seen arguments and evidence for this theory. Can you please provide the argumentative reasoning and evidence for this theory?

Otherwise what you have provided is a just so story. For example, if I heard a loud bang outside, went outside to investigate, and a person told me "basically the cause of the bang was eternal, and then some kind of odd movement or reaction within it created the big bang..." I might look for an alternative less amibiguous explanation.

Let's see Kurieuo ... I haven't come accross any powerful evidence from the atheist side just yet concerning the origin of the universe however, what I'm seeing from many atheist or agnostic cosmologists as well as lay atheists that I've been giving my questionnaire to, they frankly admit that currently they just don't know what happened before the big bang. Which to me is extremely refreshing since previously when I was undeducated on this topic I thought that since atheists prize themselves as being the "champions of reason" and claim to have all the answers and evidence on their side frankly admit that they don't know what set off the big bang to me is a good indicator that many of them are not following the evidence whereever it leads but are just hanging on to whatever they can to help justify their lifestyles and their personal hatred for God. But anyway, I don't want to leave you all empty handed so here is a snipet from a discussion that I had with a top atheist in a chat room recently....


[Anonymous atheist] Just a note to everyone, I just talked to my physics professor and he agreed with me that nothing about physics says the Big Bang was the first change to ever occur in all of existence

[Me] Say, do you happen to know what your physics professor thinks as far as the universe having a beginning? Does he think it's eternal or does he think it either came to be from nothing or from quantam activity

[Anonymous atheist] Physically, you can only go back to the instant of the Big Bang before we have no frame of reference to work with in defining things and making statements regarding what the state of affairs was, or if it even existed. We draw a complete blank. There are theories about the behavior of existence in general, I think, relating to the whole quantum foam concept. I haven't talked to him about any of that stuff though.

[Anonymous atheist] But in short, we have no information at all about anything before the instant of the Big Bang


But anyway that's all I was able to get out of him on that thus far, I'll let you know when and if I run into anything new on this topic. Thank you Silvertusk for your well thought out answer, it's the best one I've seen thus far on this. But anyway take care my fellow believers. I Love you guys.

I just think it makes more sense to believe in a eternal Creator who existed outside space and time and everything else, than to believe in an eternal something else. My head hurts trying to understand some of these arguments about the non-creator views of the beginning of the universe. I just look for the simplest answer that makes sense in my simple mind.

derrick09 wrote:Let's see Kurieuo ... I haven't come accross any powerful evidence from the atheist side just yet concerning the origin of the universe however, what I'm seeing from many atheist or agnostic cosmologists as well as lay atheists that I've been giving my questionnaire to, they frankly admit that currently they just don't know what happened before the big bang.

And yet, in my experience many atheists like this won't hesitate to ridicule those who believe God started it all.

derrick09 wrote:[Anonymous atheist] Just a note to everyone, I just talked to my physics professor and he agreed with me that nothing about physics says the Big Bang was the first change to ever occur in all of existence

[Me] Say, do you happen to know what your physics professor thinks as far as the universe having a beginning? Does he think it's eternal or does he think it either came to be from nothing or from quantam activity

[Anonymous atheist] Physically, you can only go back to the instant of the Big Bang before we have no frame of reference to work with in defining things and making statements regarding what the state of affairs was, or if it even existed. We draw a complete blank. There are theories about the behavior of existence in general, I think, relating to the whole quantum foam concept. I haven't talked to him about any of that stuff though.

[Anonymous atheist] But in short, we have no information at all about anything before the instant of the Big Bang

But anyway that's all I was able to get out of him on that thus far, I'll let you know when and if I run into anything new on this topic. Thank you Silvertusk for your well thought out answer, it's the best one I've seen thus far on this. But anyway take care my fellow believers. I Love you guys.

I recommend reading up on the Kalam Cosmological argument, in particular as Craig presents it. I think there is much logical reasoning that can be applied, which if applied, rules out a materialist enternal cause.

If you are not conviced by such an argument, perhaps an argument which I came to realise through Paul Davies (a Naturalist Agnostic) might do better. This argument is based on the physical laws themselves which govern our entire universe. Even infinite spawning universe theories can not escape this, given an infinite regress is even logically possible (which I do not believe is). There is a contingency to the laws of our universe, in that they could have been otherwise. Some even postulate in infinite universe theories, that physical laws may infact be different from one universe to the next. Yet, the laws which govern the connections between each universe, the spawning thereof of one universe out of its parent, must hold true throughout all universes (otherwise the infinite universe theory breaks down). Given this law exists, and it could have been otherwise, an obvious question is how these physical laws came to be.

God has been the most logical explanation the majority of human beings, all of whom are rational intelligent creatures, have believed to be the cause for the world they see around them. I see God as an inescapable conclusion and that this belief is both logical and based on scientific facts we know. Although many bright people think otherwise, many bright people today and throughout history think the same as I.

The Apostle Paul gives reasoning for why many bright people fail to see God in the world: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom 1:20-21) We should deeply consider those words when reaching out in our evangelical efforts to Atheists, particularly strong Atheists. They simply will not see or perceive God until the Holy Spirit moves in on their lives. And even then, they may simply harden like Pharaoh. But if they soften, then any seeds we have thrown may take root and sprout.