Big Bang proved God?

[joinfree]

Theist does not have to prove God of Theism, because He is proven? And if not proven, then what right does He have to roast unbelievers (through the sickness, the earthquakes, the heat, etc., including the hell)?

Before the appearance of matter and antimatter in the "Big Bang" there was a zero total lepton number L=0. The lepton number of the system is calculated as the sum of negative units from particles of antimatter, and positive units from particles of matter. For example, if there are two electrons in a match box and one anti-electron, then the lepton number is
L = 1 + 1 + (-1) = 1. According to the data of Science, there has never been a lepton number change in the course of time. Just like the baryon number (B = constant) pertaining to quarks.

At the moment (2018 year) we do not observe antimatter in the universe (there are no anti-planets, there are no anti-stars, there are no anti-galaxies). Therefore, the lepton number of the universe is not zero, it is much higher than zero. Conclusion: The Big Bang does not fit into the methodological naturalism.

That is, atheists are told to repent. Science, following atheism as a "scientific" method (the methodological naturalism), came to the logical conclusion that atheists do not exist:

 

[durangodawood]

I suspect this is an apparent problem and not a real one.

Give it time and dont jump to conclusions.

 

[joinfree]

I suspect this is an apparent problem and not a real one.

Give it time and dont jump to conclusions.

No problems for Theists, the problems are for atheists! Nice done, CERN!

 

[bhsmte]

Theist does not have to prove God of Theism, because He is proven? And if not proven, then what right does He have to roast unbelievers (through the sickness, the earthquakes, the heat, etc., including the hell)?

Before the appearance of matter and antimatter in the "Big Bang" there was a zero total lepton number L=0. The lepton number of the system is calculated as the sum of negative units from particles of antimatter, and positive units from particles of matter. For example, if there are two electrons in a match box and one anti-electron, then the lepton number is
L = 1 + 1 + (-1) = 1. According to the data of Science, there has never been a lepton number change in the course of time. Just like the baryon number (B = constant) pertaining to quarks.

At the moment (2018 year) we do not observe antimatter in the universe (there are no anti-planets, there are no anti-stars, there are no anti-galaxies). Therefore, the lepton number of the universe is not zero, it is much higher than zero. Conclusion: The Big Bang does not fit into the methodological naturalism.

That is, atheists are told to repent. Science, following atheism as a "scientific" method (the methodological naturalism), came to the logical conclusion that atheists do not exist:

Whatever works for you.

 

[durangodawood]

No problems for Theists, the problems are for atheists! Nice done, CERN!

This is a problem for theists because chances are they will have this apparent paradox taken away from them in time.

Dont hang your hat on this.

 

[durangodawood]

Also, there's nothing about paradox as it appears to the limited human mind that necessarily implies divine intervention.

Perhaps some material phenomena that occur far beyond the reach of ordinary human experience are naturally paradoxical to us.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It's amazing to watch a wild myth being formed. People often wonder how the ancient Greeks managed to concoct such crazy stories and then believe them. When a few imaginative men are given the credit of being knowledgeable experts, and when those men learn to tailor their stories to fit the mindset of the day, then people will believe anything. The paradigm is different, but the method of working with it is not.

Take the matter/anti-matter theory: no one knows that antimatter even exists, and they think they already know all about it and what role it played in the origin of the universe. That's backward thinking. They made their conclusion first, and now they're looking for the evidence. I'll call it "Ecneics."

 

[durangodawood]

...no one knows that antimatter even exists....

Are you sure about this?

 

[Paulos23]

We have evidence for the Big Bang. We have a good idea of what happened after 'Planck time'.

We just don't have a way to look farther back than that right now. We just don't know.

And not knowing is OK.

 

[durangodawood]

....And not knowing is OK.

Not knowing is deeply disturbing so we must assign an explanation right away.

 

[Paulos23]

Not knowing is deeply disturbing so we must assign an explanation right away.

No, just acknowledge you don't know, and keep asking questions and looking for evidence.

Assigning an explanation can lead you down the wrong road...

 

[HitchSlap]

It's amazing to watch a wild myth being formed. People often wonder how the ancient Greeks managed to concoct such crazy stories and then believe them. When a few imaginative men are given the credit of being knowledgeable experts, and when those men learn to tailor their stories to fit the mindset of the day, then people will believe anything. The paradigm is different, but the method of working with it is not.

Take the matter/anti-matter theory: no one knows that antimatter even exists, and they think they already know all about it and what role it played in the origin of the universe. That's backward thinking. They made their conclusion first, and now they're looking for the evidence. I'll call it "Ecneics."

You literally just described the genesis of every religion, ever.

 

[Speedwell]

Take the matter/anti-matter theory: no one knows that antimatter even exists, and they think they already know all about it and what role it played in the origin of the universe.

What are you taliking about? Antimatter has been observed and even produced in experiments.

That's backward thinking. They made their conclusion first, and now they're looking for the evidence. I'll call it "Ecneics."

No, that's a straw man, the standard creationist misrepresentation of how science works.

 

[Uber Genius]

Theist does not have to prove God of Theism, because He is proven? And if not proven, then what right does He have to roast unbelievers (through the sickness, the earthquakes, the heat, etc., including the hell)?

Before the appearance of matter and antimatter in the "Big Bang" there was a zero total lepton number L=0. The lepton number of the system is calculated as the sum of negative units from particles of antimatter, and positive units from particles of matter. For example, if there are two electrons in a match box and one anti-electron, then the lepton number is
L = 1 + 1 + (-1) = 1. According to the data of Science, there has never been a lepton number change in the course of time. Just like the baryon number (B = constant) pertaining to quarks.

At the moment (2018 year) we do not observe antimatter in the universe (there are no anti-planets, there are no anti-stars, there are no anti-galaxies). Therefore, the lepton number of the universe is not zero, it is much higher than zero. Conclusion: The Big Bang does not fit into the methodological naturalism.

That is, atheists are told to repent. Science, following atheism as a "scientific" method (the methodological naturalism), came to the logical conclusion that atheists do not exist:

Very confusing.

Typically the argument for God's existence is that we know from the Big Bang (or inflationary model) that the universe came into being out of nothing.

Now in philosophical terms nothing means not anything, no space, no time, no laws of physics, no matter, no energy.

From there we argue:

Anything that begins to exist has a cause

If the universe began to exist its cause is God.

We then highlight that since creation of matter, energy, space and time occurs a finite time ago, it's cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely intelligent to fine tune the universe for life, immensely powerful, and uncaused or eternal.

This is the Kalam Cosmological Argument!

 

[Uber Genius]

It's amazing to watch a wild myth being formed. People often wonder how the ancient Greeks managed to concoct such crazy stories and then believe them. When a few imaginative men are given the credit of being knowledgeable experts, and when those men learn to tailor their stories to fit the mindset of the day, then people will believe anything. The paradigm is different, but the method of working with it is not.

Take the matter/anti-matter theory: no one knows that antimatter even exists, and they think they already know all about it and what role it played in the origin of the universe. That's backward thinking. They made their conclusion first, and now they're looking for the evidence. I'll call it "Ecneics."

I'm confused about the backward thinking comment above.

Paul Dirac first published a paper on them back in 1928.

Antimatter, as opposed to dark matter, dark energy, and matter, have a positively charged particle called a positron. They are used in PET scans for medical imaging and in particle accelerators.

 

[bhsmte]

No, just acknowledge you don't know, and keep asking questions and looking for evidence.

Assigning an explanation can lead you down the wrong road...

But, religious beliefs must have all the answers. Otherwise, it loses it's ability to comfort.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Theist does not have to prove God of Theism, because He is proven?

Before the Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaitre of the Catholic University of Leuven came up with the idea of a Big Bang all the physicists more or less presumed that the universe was in a steady state, always existing and would always exist. He shook that foundation. He called it "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation", or the 'primeval atom'. Fred Hoyle, still a steady state believer derisively called it 'the big bang'.

The implications for the Big Bang proving the Christian idea of creation from nothing are intriguing. Pope Pius XII jumped on it in 1951 but Lemaitre himself urged caution, not to mix science and religion, even though he understood that his discovery erased a presumed conflict between the old Steady State model of the universe and the Christian concept of creation ex nihilo.

Upshot is that what we know from the best scientific evidence to date does agree with what good theology teaches, but that is not a rigorous proof. It is intriguing though. Science is telling us that the universe had a moment of singularity. Theology knew something like that from a long time before.

Consider too what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us. It tells us that in a closed system everything will eventually run down. That eventually the 'heat death' of the universe means the whole thing eventually grinds to a halt. That man is not immortal in a closed system, not perfectible, not moving on to some sort of 'Omega Point' of evolution. We're headed towards an eventual blah tapioca pudding. The realization of this wounded many atheist philosophers. If there is no God, this universe began in a bang and dies in a whimper. Ergo, nothing matters.

Now can we use any of this for apologetics purposes? I maintain that we can, but very gingerly. Many intellectuals have looked at the 'heat death of the universe' and realized that the perfectibility of Man just isn't going to happen. As a result, they have despaired. It is a logical conclusion, presuming the science is accurate. But science has a way of looking accurate and then some new hypothesis looks more accurate. We shouldn't wed cosmology and theology tightly. Theology is true no matter what cosmology may be teaching this year. But cosmology is currently telling us what a universe devoid of God looks like, and in that world, nothing matters. We want something to matter. God says we do matter. Is that a proof of God? Not quite. But it is the good news that we have in Jesus Christ.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Theist does not have to prove God of Theism, because He is proven? And if not proven, then what right does He have to roast unbelievers (through the sickness, the earthquakes, the heat, etc., including the hell)?

Before the appearance of matter and antimatter in the "Big Bang" there was a zero total lepton number L=0. The lepton number of the system is calculated as the sum of negative units from particles of antimatter, and positive units from particles of matter. For example, if there are two electrons in a match box and one anti-electron, then the lepton number is
L = 1 + 1 + (-1) = 1. According to the data of Science, there has never been a lepton number change in the course of time. Just like the baryon number (B = constant) pertaining to quarks.

At the moment (2018 year) we do not observe antimatter in the universe (there are no anti-planets, there are no anti-stars, there are no anti-galaxies). Therefore, the lepton number of the universe is not zero, it is much higher than zero. Conclusion: The Big Bang does not fit into the methodological naturalism.

That is, atheists are told to repent. Science, following atheism as a "scientific" method (the methodological naturalism), came to the logical conclusion that atheists do not exist:

Argument from incredulity.

 

[joinfree]

Very confusing. ...

I try to contribute to the field. I am sorry.

 

[joinfree]

.... Is that a proof of God? Not quite. But it is the good news that we have in Jesus Christ.

Be more specific: your talk was proof for Theists, and the total nonsense for Atheists. Why? The judge of the validity of a Proof is human's God: idol of atheism, or the God of Theism. The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists