Funny thing about the Big Bang Theory

[Mark Quayle]

So at the very least philosophically speaking God may exist in an eternal state in relation to our own universe because he doesn't exist parallel to it (like bubbles) he exists superior to it. This doesn't hold true with a continuous process of collapsing and expanding universes or a sea of swelling bubbles as outside influences are vehemently ejected (incase we are tempted to call that influence God) which is a logical problem.

The idea of lack of boundaries brought this to mind: There have been, I've noticed lately, several statements concerning the notion that infinity is self-contradictory (or other words to that effect). The fact our minds don't know what to do with it doesn't make it a false notion.

But regardless of by what principle, means or method the universe supposedly came to be, it behaves according to principle which it did not cause. Even when I am told that the principles by which it is caused are co-emergent with the universe (which is, of course, self-contradictory) even that principle of co-emergence governs the emergence of the universe. If I am mockingly told that to call God self-existent also subjects him to principle from outside himself, I say no, it doesn't; he is not mechanical fact. He is not subject to, for example, the principle of existence. He is the CAUSE of existence. We might think him subject to our understanding and use of the principle, "existence", but not so —that is only OUR reasoning that demands he submit to it. That he exists, there is no doubt, but we don't know what it means to say that God exists. He doesn't conform to our definitions.

 

[Aaron112]

Well I don't think that - given that so many Christians believe in evolution not just the big bang.

HIstorically speaking , do you remember when they started believing such ? In my own memory, my own experience and reading and hearing and study and such, I don't think too many Christians in reality at all believed in evolution until after the middle of the last century. I don't know many today for that matter, not knowing many anyway, who do.

 

[expos4ever]

They are numerous but one is James Peebles, check out Top cosmologist's lonely battle against 'Big Bang' theory

There is nothing in this article that supports your assertion.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Where did this bang originate from? Nothing? We could have only have been created. everything else is tripe..

"Where" questions presuppose the existence of spatio-temporal dimensions, apart from which such questions are unintelligible.

 

[Diamond72]

There could have been a big bank and a big crunch that cycle eternally.

God showed me in a dream, that is what is going to happen. I was only 8 at the time, so he used the word shrink. The Hasidic use the word contract. At some point all will come back together again.

 

[DamianWarS]

The conclusion you draw, that God is under a different set of rules, denies who and what he is. He is, as you said, not under our set of rules —rules that he made by which this universe operates— but, being self-existent, he cannot be under any rule(s), or he is not God. ALL things were made by him, not just all things in this universe. It does explain why God can have no beginning, by very definition. He is not just super-human or bigger than the universe. He is altogether OTHER.

He is under no constraint by, nor obligation to, anything from outside himself, or he is not God. There is no 'brute fact' but God.

I'm was just making a constrasting comparison, maybe better put God is the author of our system and would be above our rules.

 

[Diamond72]

The conclusion, that God is under a different set of rules, denies who and what he is.

God created the laws of Physics but Physics is finite with decay. God is infinite and there is no decay. They are starting to use the word singularity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God created the laws of Physics but Physics is finite with decay. God is infinite and there is no decay. They are starting to use the word singularity.

I'm not sure how that addresses my question.

 

[Diamond72]

I’m often amused how some at autheists point to the Big Bang Theory as evidence the universe was not created by an intelligent being, aka God.

Science can not deny that God created the laws of physics that created the Universe. They can not prove or disprove God and that makes science agnostic. There is overwhelming evidence in Science that the Bible is accurate and true. Science can not falsify anything in the Bible.

 

[Diamond72]

I'm not sure how that addresses my question.

The point is, no one can deny God.