Why do the Big Bang and religion seem incompatable?

  • 170 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Many people seem to think that the idea of the Big Bang and the ideas of creation-generally those expressed in Genesis-are incompatible. However, I'm not sure why, as the development and acceptance of the Big Bang Theory did more to support religion than it did to discredit it.

A while back I read this article on the Big Bang and it's religious aspects. I think it raises a lot of interesting points, so I'd ask everyone to read it if possible so we can discuss these and any other related points. It's an article from the American Chronicle, this was the only online copy I could find

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1945606/posts

I think it's also worth mentioning that Genesis is not meant to be a science book. It was written long before modern science developed, and it's purpose was not to explain the literal details of how creation came about. Rather, it is supposed to describe why the Universe came to be and the story of man and God's relationship

Obviously the Big Bang Theory doesn't validate everything about Genesis, or even the idea of a creator in general. However, to me at least, it seems to lend more support to the idea that the universe was created than it does to discredit it

I would appreciate it if this not turn into a flame war and if everyone could remain respectful. I think we can have a reasonable, logical discussion to share thoughts, ideas, stories, etc.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Well the Big Bang doesn't need the idea of a creator or religion to support it. Science doesn't need religion but religion relies on science to try and stay relevant.

Genesis was indeed written long before we had access to the scientific knowledge we have now. It was written literally since there was no understanding of how things actually worked. You may claim now that it is not to be taken literally but it was written to be taken so originally.

Also I find it ironic when religious people say how the big bang is improbable because they have the misguided notion that the universe just suddenly came out of nowhere or something like that yet they believe in a god that doesn't have any origin of any kind.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Well the Big Bang doesn't need the idea of a creator or religion to support it. Science doesn't need religion but religion relies on science to try and stay relevant.

Genesis was indeed written long before we had access to the scientific knowledge we have now. It was written literally since there was no understanding of how things actually worked. You may claim now that it is not to be taken literally but it was written to be taken so originally.

Also I find it ironic when religious people say how the big bang is improbable because they have the misguided notion that the universe just suddenly came out of nowhere or something like that yet they believe in a god that doesn't have any origin of any kind.

How do you know that Genesis was written to be taken as scientific fact?

We know that the universe had an origin, something caused it to begin to exist. We believe that God was the one who began the universe. God, however, has no beginning. He is eternal, and therefore doesn't need something to cause Him.

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

People shouldn't use the bible as a science book for one good reason.. it's not.

Christiana themselves debate and get nowhere with this topic because Genesis on Te topic of creation can be taken different ways when it comes to the order.

I believe the BBT and Genesis go hand in hand. I find no reason for them not too.

Avatar image for dernman
dernman

36147

Forum Posts

10092

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

People shouldn't use the bible as a science book for one good reason.. it's not.

Christiana themselves debate and get nowhere with this topic because Genesis on Te topic of creation can be taken different ways when it comes to the order.

I believe the BBT and Genesis go hand in hand. I find no reason for them not too.

Stop that. You might get people to start thinking religious people should not all be generalized into one way of thinking. (sarcasm)

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dernman said:

@chillxpill said:

People shouldn't use the bible as a science book for one good reason.. it's not.

Christiana themselves debate and get nowhere with this topic because Genesis on Te topic of creation can be taken different ways when it comes to the order.

I believe the BBT and Genesis go hand in hand. I find no reason for them not too.

Stop that. You might get people to start thinking religious people should not all be generalized into one way of thinking. (sarcasm)

lol

Avatar image for pharoh_atem
Pharoh_Atem

45284

Forum Posts

10114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

I guess in juxtaposition with the Steady State theory of the cosmos, it gives some credence but as a whole, The Big Bang doesn't point to creator at all in the grand scheme of things. This, is coming from an agnostic deist.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c6600594117e
deactivated-5c6600594117e

22316

Forum Posts

9027

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 111

User Lists: 51

According to the Pope they go hand in hand perfectly...

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jake_fury: exactly, and for some reason people were surprised when he said that even though its nothing new

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@arcus said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Well the Big Bang doesn't need the idea of a creator or religion to support it. Science doesn't need religion but religion relies on science to try and stay relevant.

Genesis was indeed written long before we had access to the scientific knowledge we have now. It was written literally since there was no understanding of how things actually worked. You may claim now that it is not to be taken literally but it was written to be taken so originally.

Also I find it ironic when religious people say how the big bang is improbable because they have the misguided notion that the universe just suddenly came out of nowhere or something like that yet they believe in a god that doesn't have any origin of any kind.

How do you know that Genesis was written to be taken as scientific fact?

We know that the universe had an origin, something caused it to begin to exist. We believe that God was the one who began the universe. God, however, has no beginning. He is eternal, and therefore doesn't need something to cause Him.

I didn't say nor was it written to be taken as scientific fact, because we didn't have scientific facts about the universe when it was written. Which is one of the reasons it was written. It was written to be taken literally.

You say that yet you think that the universe needed a god to create the universe.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c6600594117e
deactivated-5c6600594117e

22316

Forum Posts

9027

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 111

User Lists: 51

@arcus: I think the headline initially surprised people but the context of what he said really made sense.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Arcus1

@mrdecepticonleader:

How do you know it was intended to be taken as literal fact for all time?

I'm afraid I don't quite get what you're saying in that second point, could you do me a favor and explain it again?

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@jake_fury: yeah, the media portrayed it as some huge development when it really wasn't any different

Avatar image for pharoh_atem
Pharoh_Atem

45284

Forum Posts

10114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

#14  Edited By Pharoh_Atem

@arcus:

We know that the universe had an origin, something caused it to begin to exist. We believe that God was the one who began the universe. God, however, has no beginning. He is eternal, and therefore doesn't need something to cause Him.

Out of curiosity, why must the logic of first cause(which doesn't apply to the Big Bang because that was before the thing we consider "logic" take place) apply, to the universe, but not to this eternal "God"?

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dccomicsrule2011: because if the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin. However, God has no beginning, therefore there doesn't need to be anything that caused Him to begin. I hope that makes sense

Avatar image for pharoh_atem
Pharoh_Atem

45284

Forum Posts

10114

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

#16  Edited By Pharoh_Atem

@arcus said:

@dccomicsrule2011: because if the universe had a beginning, something must have caused it to begin. However, God has no beginning, therefore there doesn't need to be anything that caused Him to begin. I hope that makes sense

No, it doesn't answer my question, actually. It just leaves me scratching my head again.

The problem with first cause logic, in terms of the creation of the universe has always been this with me; why does the Big Bang need to follow logic as we know it, when the Big Bang itself was the creation of logic as we know it? Before the Big Bang there was no universe, therefore, the "everything as a first cause" bit fails to add the fact that the "first cause" logic came to existence with the Big Bang, and probably didn't exist before it.

Also, why is God immune to the first cause? How could he/she/it always exist without a first cause but the Big Bang needs one?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@arcus said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

How do you know it was intended to be taken as literal fact for all time?

I'm afraid I don't quite get what you're saying in that second point, could you do me a favor and explain it again?

That is how it was intended originally. People do believe in it literally now still and some don't. Because we have a scientific and evidence based understanding of things now.

Well you believe that god did not require a creator yet you believe the universe requires one. Just seems inconsistent.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrdecepticonleader:

But how do you know it was intended to always be taken literally? Is there any evidence?

Well something caused the universe to come to exist since it had a beginning. However, God has no beginning, so He doesn't need a cause

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dccomicsrule2011:

Well the Christian response would be that God is logical and existed before the Big Bang. That is an interesting question.

I suppose it raises the question, where did logic come from? We see that the universe obeys logical laws-like anything that begins needs a cause, would its creation follow those laws too?

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@arcus said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

But how do you know it was intended to always be taken literally? Is there any evidence?

Well something caused the universe to come to exist since it had a beginning. However, God has no beginning, so He doesn't need a cause

As I said the fact that it served as the origin of how the universe came to be according to the bible. It was obviously meant to be taken literally originally. If it wasn't what would have been the point in it being in the bible? The point of people being taught it literally. It filled the gap of people's ignorance on how the universe came to be.

Well as I said the Big Bang is not reliant on this concept of a god.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrdecepticonleader:

The point was to explain why the Univers came to exist, not the details of how, and God's role as creator

What do you think caused the Big Bang

Avatar image for shot
Shot

3014

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Religion is only for primitive minds. Burn them before they can reproduce.

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arcus: @dccomicsrule2011: The "Big Bang" must follow logic because it must have a cause.

Logic comes from understanding the laws we learn by studying the universe. Without the "Big Bang" we have no logic because nothing began.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Asking the question, "Why?" to everything isn't as important to me as asking the question, "How?" I think humanity shouldn't be so uncomfortable with not having all the answers. Leaving things blank is okay as long as the search for an answer doesn't stop.

For me, I appreciate when people who believe in God(s) state their acceptance of the Big Bang Theory. It's the ones who argue against it (and evolution) that I have a hard time with.

Taking the Bible literally is impossible. It can't and shouldn't be done, no matter what your faith or lack of one is. Holding it up as evidence against the Big Bang Theory or evolution is unfair, in my opinion. It wasn't meant to be a counter argument to anything. I suspect the same of the Qaran. Again, my opinion.

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By ChillxPill

@ms-lola: Agreed. Though, LIKE science you can do research to learn context, and have your own perspective on what's in the Bible, Qaran and so on.

Avatar image for magnablue
magnablue

10500

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Why do people believe in the bible/genesis/qaran ect.?

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28  Edited By ChillxPill

@hylian: Because people are opened minded. Some find religion comfortable. Some are just soul searching or just trying the find the truth.

Avatar image for lightning_lasso
Lightning_Lasso

55

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dccomicsrule2011:

I can't really help you, but I'll try my best to answer your question. God is omnipotent. Meaning all powerful and nothing less. So what does this mean? Not even I'm entirely sure. Like Arcus described, God is basically eternal. However, most peoples minds are to skewed to understand what omnipotent truly is. Why would an omnipotent be bound by logic? Omnipotent itself is a no-limits fallacy. So what exception is there to logic? Heck, if an omnipotent being was truly omnipotent then they dictate what's what. Left could be right, up is down, and black could be white. As long as that omnipotent wills it, it will be. No one can really question that because no one except God has ever experienced true omnipotent.

Also, if we deny the existence of a God, then the Big Bang just happening wouldn't make sense if it just happened. If we did truly bound ourselves by human thinking, and limit are beliefs to that of science, then there no possible way the Big Bang happened without something making it happen. Because before the existence of a universe (As most scientist believe there wasn't universe at one point in time.) there was nothing. Nothing can't come from nothing, because it's nothing. (I'm not sure if I can even refer to nothing as "It.") But everything comes from something right? But this is only if we limit ourselves to scientific views. Hope that helps! And if It doesn't, I hope I've screwed your mined over even more.

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By ChillxPill

@lightning_lasso: God can't do EVERYTHING. God can do anything that's within his nature of doing. Basically anything that is logically posible he can do.

Everything else you explained nicely.

Avatar image for abyssdarkfire
Abyssdarkfire

1471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think the Big Bang and Religion seem incompatible because one is straight fate based while the other one is a theory of how the universe works based off of logic and reasoning. however the real problem arises because both sides tend to denounce the other side when neither side has actual proof that their right. Everyone has different interpretations of the bible I think every thing from the Bible should not be taken literally for ex noah arc common sense dictates that it's not possible for Noah's arc to happen yet at the same time there is no way that i can definitely prove that it did not happen. I think a scientific equivalent to noah's arc is probably the Dinosaur meteor extinction theories were a lot of scientist have different believes of what caused the Dinosaurs to die out.

What i believe personally.

Well Religion is nice to have at the end of the day it was a precursor to Science to explain how the world worked. The ancient Greeks had their Olympian Gods the Egyptians had their gods and so on and so on. Religion was created to explain the mysteries of the Earth that man could not explain at the time as well how man should act in the society that they were living in. So i find myself on the Science side of the spectrum to explain how the universe exists at the same time. I do not deem anyone's faith such as Islam,Judaism,Christianity,Hindu,Buddhism,Greek Gods,etc.............. to be wrong as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@arcus said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

The point was to explain why the Univers came to exist, not the details of how, and God's role as creator

What do you think caused the Big Bang

You brought god into it. I simply questioned the authenticity of some of your claims about him. So I guess you basically don't have an answer for that then.

Nothing caused it.

Avatar image for frozen
frozen

40401

Forum Posts

258

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 14

#33  Edited By frozen  Moderator

The problem is that some people attribute God to causing the Big Bang yet refuse Religion to undergo Scientific scrutiny.

The Big Bang was proposed on Scientific principal, Religion was not.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arcus: Why must God be the first cause? Why can't the universe just be "self-existing"?

If everything has cause, then there cannot exist anything that does not have cause. Either some things can exist without causes, or nothing can.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91: I didn't say everything has a cause. I said everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so what caused it?@mrdecepticonleader: then why did it happen?

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Depends on how you interpret the Scriptures. I mean I can say that when God said "let there be light" it means God created the sun, or God started the Big Bang, or God giving Thomas Alva Edison a science lecture on his next great invention, or God inventing voice command, etc. Science is perfectly compatible because in the end, believing humans actually came from dinosaurs or aliens actually landed on Roswell and killed JFK to take over the White House isn't going to affect salvation.

In any case, the Bible's purpose, or just any religious text's purpose, is to teach humanity the values of benevolence. So when you read Genesis, you look for the values behind it first and foremost, not reading it 'word-for-word' as if it were a DC vs Marvel crossover. The problem with many people is that they take everything literally by reading the bible in the same style as they do a comic book. It's like taking raw beef, potato, and tomato by swallowing them whole instead of cooking them into a steak, tasting it, and then digesting it slowly.

Avatar image for sc
SC

18454

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By SC  Moderator

American and a few other countries politics and money and power tied to politics and religion, the fact that most people generally have been demonstrated to overestimate how scientifically competent and reasonable than they actually are, humans tendency and frequency to make strong positive assertions over their tendency to show curiosity over specifics as far as communication of ideas and meaning.

Religion/religious texts doesn't lend credence towards the Big Bang theory (or vice versa) because the Big Bang theory isn't an idea about something coming from nothing. Its a theory as in a scientific theory that exists as a model for the development of the universe, specifically its early development. In a very oversimplified black and white way I suppose as far as patterns go, anything that alludes to the idea that at some point what we consider the universe existed in a much more minuscule scale before greatly expanding in such a massive way that you could say is thereby validated by the Big Bang theory except as far as sincere and legitimate understanding of what a theory entails and many of the ideas used with such comparisons and parallels well. I mean lets consider the word know as in knowledge. Many people use that word very differently, but also in a way that overlaps. Its quite common with words, they exists to assist communication, but words aren't maths as far as perfectly conveying ideas exactly, more so they usually just try to accurately convey meanings and ideas. Except some people actually don't really think about such things and actually treat language like maths, and if not that can often just find conflict with other individuals with different subconscious or conscious ideas about it. Personally I tend to be quite strict with language, but I also tend to be aware of that. My point here being that when I use the word know or knowledge, I use those words to strictly express what is factual, as in strictly observed as in demonstrable as in my belief or perceived awareness or personal experience is not strong enough on its own to warrant my use of those words or ideas, unless I am being colloquial with them. Like I know someone people will skip my post because its more than a small paragraph… I mean I don't actually know, I am just using past experience and familiarity with people to made what I consider a fairly safe prediction heh heh. No individuals way of using language is the "right way" either, but therein the importance of people being able to communicate well with each other, and mutual understanding of certain ideas or at least attempted willingness to. So in one sense there is a "right way" of using language as far as consensus and agreement, my own very post using the English language demonstrates this naturally and some who read my post will be able to understand each word I use but not everyone will necessarily understand the intent or intended message behind the words, and its also highly unlikely that anyone will translate it perfectly either and also many will probably completely misunderstand as well. The why and hows to all that being determined by a bunch of variables.

Which is generally true of a lot of communication and say why when one individual says the word theory, some people will think scientific theory, a model which takes facts, observations and data and information and organizes it in such a way to provide answers to questions, predictions, more questions, and so on and some people will just think guess. Also peoples curiosity about the origin, the scope, and size of the Universe, I am never one to discourage that, but the nature of language and communication? When you think about how much miscommunication and arguments happen over so many smaller and mundane aspects of reality, factor in how many people make assumptions as far as communication with others, well, talking about the Big Bang and religion almost feels like sprinting and pole-vaulting before being able to walk? Its why in science you get taken more seriously if you have qualifications because it can signify that you have a certain understanding of ideas and terms so time isn't wasted over semantics which isn't necessarily something that can be afforded in an open public forum discussion and a small reason why conversations about such subjects devolve into name calling, character judgments, unfair generalizations so on.

Short version, religion and the Big Bang theory can be very compatible, after all their are a lot of different religions, religious people and approaches that can be taken. Some of those religions, religious people and approaches can also conflict with the Big Bang theory and anything, its a very broad banner encompassing a lot of other broad and specific ideas.

Avatar image for jonez_
Jonez_

11499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

UGGGHHHH.

Get this garbage out of here.

Avatar image for wd40
wd40

137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Damn, these 'mericans are really lacking of knowledge on theological topics. A lot of more religion educed people are incompetable to discuss on these things, so does opposites. Many stupid things have been spoken.

Btw. your main arguments are based on theories, which are here for many years but still not proved...

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@arcus: There is no why. I feel like Yoda when I say that...

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arcus said:

@mr_clockwork91: I didn't say everything has a cause. I said everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, so what caused it?

Ok...my statement still stands. If God can be self-existing, why can't the universe?

You're begging the question by saying that the universe has a beginning. The expansion of the universe has a beginning but before that it was a singularity. We don't know if that singularity was created or not.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for impurestcheese
ImpurestCheese

12542

Forum Posts

2824

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

#44  Edited By ImpurestCheese

@arcus: If we look at the way the universe currently operates that may give us a clue. At current expansion is stretching the gravitational pull of the entire universe. There will come at time where that pull will be so stretched that everything collapses in on itself, and the force draws all the matter and energy to a single point. Once that happens it's likely that the surplus of energy contained will explode outwards in a new Big Bang

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

28248

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for impurestcheese
ImpurestCheese

12542

Forum Posts

2824

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

@arcus: Yep the expansion is proven fact, what is theory is it's effect once maximum gravitational strain is reached

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By ChillxPill

@mr_clockwork91: Whatever begins to exist has a cause behind it.

• The Universe began to exist:1. From Science-Mathematics-Philosophy we know the Universe had a beginning.

• Therefore the Universe has a cause.

_________________________________

- Now this poses the question: What kind of cause can create the universe.

• First, it itself must be uncaused because you can't have an infinite regress of causes.

• It must be immaterial or spirit because it existed before the material of the universe existed.

• It must be eternal because it created time.

• Must have intelligence and great power because of the precision and power of the event of creation.

• Must have a personal will because it must have decided to create.

• The principle of occam razor tells us that there can only be one cause.

Now the universe contains information. Only intelligence can create information.

Avatar image for sc
SC

18454

Forum Posts

182748

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#49 SC  Moderator

@chillxpill: Thats a simplified variant of the Kalām cosmological argument which has been deconstructed, rejected and explained as faulty many times in many ways. Are you aware of its flaws and criticisms?

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sc: I am aware. I was just putting that up to present the argument to his question.