Need help with a question a atheist presented

[Eklypised]

So i wanna make sure i answer this throughly. Here’s his questions after we talked about atheist wanting a infinite universe instead of dealing with the Big Bang. Any suggestions on what do actually say. I’m trying to find the polls now.

 

[Radagast]

So i wanna make sure i answer this throughly. Here’s his questions after we talked about atheist wanting a infinite universe instead of dealing with the Big Bang. Any suggestions on what do actually say. I’m trying to find the polls now.

Well, first, talking to people like this is fruitless (Matthew 10:14). If it has to be done (which I doubt), I don't think you have the skills for it.

1. Not sure what you mean here.

2. The overwhelming consensus of scientists is that the Big Bang theory is correct (see e.g. here). The onus of proof is on him to find a respected physicist or cosmologist who disagrees.

3. The Big Bang theory implies that our universe came into being at a time T0 (i.e. that it existed after T0, but not "before," if "before" has any meaning). In that sense it was created. The Big Bang theory says nothing about how our universe came into being.

 

[Eklypised]

Well, first, talking to people like this is fruitless (Matthew 10:14). If it has to be done (which I doubt), I don't think you have the skills for it.

1. Not sure what you mean here.

Their would be no need for a creator if the universe as always existed. That’s why now their trying to get away from the Big Bang which they have to come up with some explanation on what caused something from nothing. If the universe has always
Existed then a creator is diminished a little bit

 

[Radagast]

Their would be no need for a creator if the universe as always existed.

Oh, you meant infinite in time? You should have said so.

That’s why now their trying to get away from the Big Bang which they have to come up with some explanation on what caused something from nothing.

No doubt that is true. But it's foolish to say that to an atheist unless you can back it up.

 

[pdudgeon]

I would let God handle this one.
And if the atheist won't accept God's answer, why do you think that he will accept yours?

God has already put the evidence of Creation out there to be seen.

Every night and every day creation happens.
People are born, plants grow and produce seed, rain and snow happen, somewhere the Sun shines, the moon beams, and day turns into night and then becomes day again. That is time, as men measure it.

 

[pdudgeon]

Oh, you meant infinite in time? You should have said so.



No doubt that is true. But it's foolish to say that to an atheist unless you can back it up.

Ummm, no. God is not in time, but outside of it.
God created time for the sake of man, but God Himself is infinite (not limited) by Time itself.

 

[Radagast]

Ummm, no. God is not in time, but outside of it.
God created time for the sake of man, but God Himself is infinite (not limited) by Time itself.

Yes, I know that. I think you totally misunderstood what I said.

The OP's argument (I now realise, after his clarification) is that atheists want a universe that's infinite in time, because it takes away the need for a creation event. That's consistent with what Stanley Jaki OSB said in his books, but it's harder to convince an atheist of that motivation, and I myself wouldn't try.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Their would be no need for a creator if the universe as always existed. That’s why now their trying to get away from the Big Bang which they have to come up with some explanation on what caused something from nothing. If the universe has always
Existed then a creator is diminished a little bit

The eternal universe was the common belief prior to the "Big Bang" theory. Arguing with atheists has little point, even if you are a genius scientist or philosopher. I am neither, but I've argued enough to know what a time waste it can be. There are exceptions. Some are genuinely interested in what and why Christians believe.

 

[Eloy Craft]

However it's happening, God did it.

 

[pdudgeon]

Yes, I know that. I think you totally misunderstood what I said.

The OP's argument (I now realise, after his clarification) is that atheists want a universe that's infinite in time, because it takes away the need for a creation event. That's consistent with what Stanley Jaki OSB said in his books, but it's harder to convince an atheist of that motivation, and I myself wouldn't try.

ok, gotcha.

 

[RDKirk]

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them -- John 6

This might be anyone, but it is not everyone.

The person who has been drawn by the Father does not need a clever argument.

The person who has been drawn by the Father needs nothing but the gospel.

 

[Tolworth John]

Here’s his questions

On science shows that the universe had a beginning try :-
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

quote from it:-
At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012).

The evidence is universaly accepted by scientists, if your atherist disputes it ask him for evidence.
Just be sure you have explored the Christian arguments for desigh, complexity, morality etc etc and can quote the scierntific evidence.

hint wintery knight often quotes them so use his search function.

 

[Tolworth John]

Another link to WK, this one has a seies of links to scientific based posts about creation:-
Are feminists right to think that gender-neutral marriage makes women happier?

Do scroll down to the bottom for the links, or read the article.

 

[Eklypised]

On science shows that the universe had a beginning try :-
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

quote from it:-
At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012).

The evidence is universaly accepted by scientists, if your atherist disputes it ask him for evidence.
Just be sure you have explored the Christian arguments for desigh, complexity, morality etc etc and can quote the scierntific evidence.

hint wintery knight often quotes them so use his search function.

this is what he said in the comments

 

[Eklypised]

The Big Bang/universe is not my area of expertise in apologetics. What would you reply?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Well, first, talking to people like this is fruitless

BINGO!!! they're not trying to "Learn anything", as much as they're trying to MAKE YOU DOUBT. Smile, and walk away, knowing that YOU KNOW SOMETHING THEY DON'T: "there's no other name but JESUS by which men can be saved".

 

[Radagast]

this is what he said in the comments

He seems to believe in a cyclic universe. Personally, I think the scientific evidence is against that because (1) the universe doesn't seem to be headed for a "Big Crunch," and (2) entropy considerations rule it out.

But obviously you don't know enough about science to talk him out of that position. Why are you even having the conversation?

The Big Bang/universe is not my area of expertise in apologetics.

I ask again: Why are you even having the conversation?

 

[Eklypised]

He seems to believe in a cyclic universe. Personally, I think the scientific evidence is against that because (1) the universe doesn't seem to be headed for a "Big Crunch," and (2) entropy considerations rule it out.

But obviously you don't know enough about science to talk him out of that position. Why are you even having the conversation?



I ask again: Why are you even having the conversation?

this was my comment on a Lee Strobel video and dude attacked me on it

If there is no God, then all of creation just accidentally popped into existence all by itself. Everything exists by mere chance, as a result of random biochemical processes, without any purpose, without any destiny, without any reason....everything simply is what it is. So this accidental, random creation came loaded with all sorts of physical laws that are filled with rhyme and reason, logic, and rationality.

Atheist Paul Davis outlines all factors for life to evolve on Earth, which he calls “coincidental factors”, the calculations and odds him and other scientist came up with was 1 x 10 to the 400th power. A number bigger than all the atoms in the observable universe.

Astro-physicists (can’t remember any names) estimate that there are no more than 10x80 infinitesimal particles in the universe and that the age of the universe in its present form is no greater than 10x18 seconds.....30 billion years. So they say each particle can participate in a thousand billion (10x12) different events every second.....then the greatest number of events that could ever happen in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 10x80 X 10x 80 X 10x12 or 10x110. Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10x110 cannot occur. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe.....the simplest replicating protein molecule has been shown by Golay1 to have a probability of one in 10x450. Salisbury2 calculates the probability of a typical DNA chain to be one in 10x60

The odds are astronomical for mere chance given all the factors that have to take place.

 

[Radagast]

this was my comment on a Lee Strobel video and dude attacked me on it

There are two useful kinds of apologetics:

1. experts write books defending Christianity
2. ordinary Christians defend Christianity, and correct misapprehensions about it, when talking to personal friends and acquaintances (books from group 1 are useful here)

What you're doing seems to be neither of those.

If there is no God, then all of creation just accidentally popped into existence all by itself.

Yes, I know. I'm a Christian. Why are you telling me this?

Salisbury2 calculates the probability of a typical DNA chain to be one in 10x600.

That seems like a pretty dubious calculation to me. And a rather mindless copy-pasta from icr.org, given that reference 2 has been lost (of course, it wasn't a particularly compelling reference anyway). Not to mention turning 10^600 into the nonsensical 10x600.

What effect did you think posting that was going to have?

 

[KateforChrist]

I gave up worrying about how the universe came into being several years ago.

The conclusion that I came to is that if God is able to create the universe (and I personally believe that He did, just using if in an if then statement) then He is able to do so in any way He chooses. If He had chosen to He could have made it all at one time in the wink of an eye.

My personal belief is He has told us in the Bible as much as we need to know about His creating the universe. Anything that man thinks up are just theories that cannot be proven. We think with logical reasoning but we have to remember that we are humans. God has his reasons for not revealing everything to us at this time.

There are many things that we believe through plain and simple faith. With logical human reasoning Jesus dying on a cross and being resurrected to save us doesn't make sense.