Why do the Big Bang and religion seem incompatable?

I would also like to add, asking "why does God have to be the cause" is pretty much asserting (imo) you don't want it to be God.

So I'll ask why can't it be God? Or heck let's not even use God since that's such a sensitive word/name. Why can't it be some divine intelligence?

@chillxpill: Ah okay. ^_^.

I don't know why science and religion have to come into conflict unless you use the "God of the Gaps" style, a higher being could still play by the rules of science but it's certainly easier if he/she/it does break natural laws for us.

@chillxpill: @arcus: The universe existed as a singularity, what caused the universe was the big bang.

chill: Your first statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause behind it." Where did God come from? If he is eternal, then again why can't the universe itself be eternal?

And I;m not asserting that god can't be the cause of it. The op was that religion and science can go hand in hand which asserts god created the big bang. I am merely asking why is it god? Why not pixies that create universes for the hell of it?

Dan Baker refutted the Kalam argument;

"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question."

Untill the next one... but that's cool for now.

Don't have much to add except everybody should watch Cosmos(2014). If only the first episode cause it will get you hooked but also because it's all about the big bang and the universe as we know it (as of now-ish). The quality of the show cannot be denied as it is now the 4th highest rated tv show ever(by general consensus on IMDB). It's also available on Netflix and it's crazy cheap on dvd/Blu-Ray on purpose because of it's positive effect on humanity as a hole (i know it's kinda of an overstatement but in terms of factual information i don't think i've learned more from anything/anybody in my hole life).

If your worried that it is a learning show you would also be wrong cause a show teaching you about space/evolution/black holes/earth/etc would never be that highly praised if it weren't equally entertaining. The special effects alone will blow anybody's mind as they rival the biggest movies of the year. So please EVERYBODY i beg you all to watch it and if any of you don't like it please come at me cause i really would be surprised if anybody did at all.

@mr_clockwork91: but why did the Big Bang happen? @xaos: what do you mean until the next one?

@mr_clockwork91: Here we go.. No one created God, he has always been.. he never began to exist.

You would just be making that up if you said pixies did it.

Again I ask why couldn't it be God?

Considering our current knowledge and understanding of the universe, whichever idea we come up with about what happened before the big bang (if that question even makes any sense) will most likely be false.

It could be that "nothing" created universe as explained in the book A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

It could be that our universe is just one of the many, a product of natural processes so much different than anything we can experience that it's far beyond our reasoning and understanding. This Multiverse might be eternal, or it might have completely different dimensions, which are neither space nor time.

It could be that some kind of intelligence created us.

There are many other ideas, and most likely all of them are false, since we don't yet understand the subject well enough.

@mortein: That doesn't really answer my question. Why can't God be the cause?

(Though its pretty much impossible to rule God out using logic.)

You basically gave answers to the question "Why can't science find the source of the universe"

Thats kind of the point. If I said God did it, I would be making it up.

It could be God but no one here will answer why can't the universe just be eternal itself?

And if God did do it, how do you know?

I think God is one of the countless possible answers for what was the cause for the beginning of our universe.

Also I don't think you have a proper understanding of what science really is, and I didn't say that science "can't find the source of the universe", I said that with our current understanding and knowledge of the universe we are unlikely to figure out what happened before the big bang, if that question even makes sense.

@arcus: I don't know.

@mortein: Don't we use Science to understand the universe? I didn't say you said that.

@jake_fury: @arcus: Considering it was a Catholic Priest who proposed the theory in the first place.

@mr_clockwork91:

1. That.. I don't know how to respond because there's so much that's wrong with "If I said God did it I would be making it up" and the fact you compared to existence of God and Pixies.

2. Simple Logic dictates that the Universe has not eternally existed. (Law of entropy also predicts this by saying "A universe that had eternally existed would have died an eternity ago"

3. I could answer that, but it would be pointless. A question like that doesn't do any good.

@arcus:

Untill the next Pope.

Some opinon tend to be changing with each Pope. Benedict XVI was stating that enligthenement origin was coming from chirstianity. I founded those words were hard to swallow. Same with using the Logos to justifying Christianity.Applying some spiritual darwinism to justifying religion ? Not for me, really.

I must say that I'm quite... dubious with the church institution. But I'm sure you(ve guessed that by yourself now.

As for the question: Fundamentalism and New Age Atheism is what is making people think Religion & Science can't co-exist (or even philosophy/spirituality in some cases). Both sides cause and use generalisations which led to this black and white mentality.

@xaos: well I know that the Pope Francis's declaration about the Big Bang and evolution wasn't anything new @maccyd: exactly

I just find it hilarious that religious people think it is a literal bang.

@mr_clockwork91: Where would you get that Pixies created the universe?

No it can't. I don't get how someone that doesn't believe in God can say the universe can be held to the same standard.. when anyone who believes in God and even those who don't believe know the God has no creator.

That answer doesn't really do anything :P. Because what you determine as evidence is based on what you believe. So really that statement is really a matter of opinion.

@mr_clockwork91: just out of curiosity, is there significant evidence for a multiverse?

Not sure the idea of a creator is incompatible with the theory of the Big Bang, but religion is. Adam and Eve for example, universe created in a single day nonsense.

@arcus: Not really, it's just a hypothesis right now and scientists say its highly probable but due to our limited technology they are not sure, let alone we still do not fully understand our own universe.

@mr_clockwork91: "Where would you get that god created the universe?"

This is the question on the year.. I don't know if you're trolling or just clueless..

No ones questioning if the universe exist..

Maybe because a person that believes in God with any common sense knows that God and the Universe are not the same thing.

Ok?

Actually no.. it really is a matter of opinion. I really don't know why people use that as some sort of trump card lol. The only thing I'm denying is the Universe did not come into existence.

Obviously Genesis isn't meant to be a science book. The Universe wasn't made in a day, but it was created in time periods, in an orderly fashion. As for Adam and Eve, at some point there was a first man and a first woman, was there not?

Why create something you don't care about at all?

@mr_clockwork91: Um... no they don't hold the same weight. Cute joke though.

Proof there's no evidence of God? (Without using your opinion)

Well that's your opinion I guess.

You know what I mean. Stop playing dumb :P. I never said I didn't believe the univer began to exist.

Christianity is clearly compatible with the Big Bang theory, as the history of the theory shows; Christianity was not very compatible with the Static State theory, as history also shows. Big Bang theory implies there was a beginning to the universe matching the much earlier Christianity claim that there was a beginning to the universe. Now, what you're probably implying is that the Big Bang theory is a natural flow to the theory of evolution, which is not necessarily compatible with Christianity; but evolution from the Big Bang theory clearly breaks down with complicated biological molecules into biological lifeforms. While you can make the connection from stars to elements to relativity simple molecules, the shear odds causes this logic to collapse with complicated biological molecules than biological lifeforms. Thus, you have to conclude that there was a designer or creator to make the connection to complicated biological molecules and biological lifeforms from simple elements and molecules.

The Big Bang requires a trigger. People suggest that it happened by itself which I can't get my head around, and I'm not even religious.

L. D.

Bump

Posted this on the other thread before noticing it was locked:

Anyone here read Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? Remember the bit where Mxy explains that the little imp in a bowler hat is just how he presents himself to 3D beings because they can't conceive of his true form, and manifests his real body, which Lois Lane cannot properly describe because there is no human way to explain what a 5D being looks like?

That's exactly what happens when people make self-assured statements like "God is a fantasy" or "There is no proof that God exists". Regardless of whether or not God exists, the nature of God --- specifically the nature as defined by claims about God --- is such that no human could ever collect proof that God exists even if such proof were available in the universe. You're a 3D being at the mercy of the constraints of space and time trying to visualize a being of undefined dimensions that allegedly has no limits whatsoever. It's like a blind man deciding light isn't real because he can't see it. Humans collect proof through the tools available to them; what human tool even exists to collect proof about a God? And how do you decide there's no proof without even having the tools to determine that?

For the same reason most theological conceptions of God are probably false as well; it's highly unlikely a God is an old man with a flowing white beard because humans think he is, since we're a speck of dust in an impossibly vast universe and simply not important enough for an omnipotent entity to model itself after. That particular bit of the tale is indeed a fantasy. But whether an omnipotent being that created all of reality exists or not is not a question anyone who has ever lived can really answer in one way or another. Theoretical physicists and high school dropouts are being equally stupid when they try to give "yes" or "no" answers to that question.

I-I don't know man...yeah

Both theories seem abnormal. You may ask me how exactly does the idea of God's existense is abnormal, but here's the deal. Many people believe that no matter that there is almost no proof or evidence that he actually exists, he is up there watching us and helping us, probably. But as much as that seems comforting and realistic for most religious people, it seems strange. Is there an actual being up there with so much power? Did he really create us? Those are the questions we ask ourselves almost every day and as much as I agree with @saren's comment that God's existense cannot truly be shown or documented because he may be a being that no one can describe or even witness with his own eyes, I still find it hard to believe that there actually is such a figure.

The same goes for the Big Bang Theory for me. I know the basics of it but not the actual scientific description, but I still think that I am more than capable of sharing my opinion on it. I find it easier to believe than the whole God theory, but there are still many questions that can be asked but not actually answered. The basic difference between these two theories is that one does not need the existense of a being with mighty power while the other does.

Because religion is stupid

We should keep asking both "How?" and "Why?" I don't understand why a false dichotomy needs to be created.

I find the Big Bang Theory and religion to be perfectly compatible.

I find that logic and religion are perfectly compatible as well. Though I find some elements of religious expression to be illogical.

Logic itself is a fundamental truth which must be the same before and after the Big Bang in order to be of any relevance. Like mathematics.

Science and religion don't contradict each other.

QFT

Well someone had to create the big bang, so they should go hand in hand.

This.. actually summarizes the big paragraph I planned on writing.

@kuonphobos:

#90 Posted by kuonphobos (5047 posts) - 1 day, 5 hours ago - Show Bio

We should keep asking both "How?" and "Why?" I don't understand why a false dichotomy needs to be created.

I find the Big Bang Theory and religion to be perfectly compatible.

I find that logic and religion are perfectly compatible as well. Though I find some elements of religious expression to be illogical.

All of this makes sense to a certain extent.

Logic itself is a fundamental truth which must be the same before and after the Big Bang in order to be of any relevance. Like mathematics.

Sure it is. But can we be sure that logic before the start of everything we know it, was the same as now?

They're definitely compatible.

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/

Actually... no.

First, your statement already presupposes a creator or "someone" that is needed for a Big Bang to exist, which is not proven. This is called begging the question. You try to show how something is true by first assuming it's true... a logical fallacy.

The Big Bang is a fact, regardless of what preceded it. So lets start by properly defining what the BB is. The BB is the scientific theory that the universe was at some point in a very small, dense, and hot state. From there the universe expanded very rapidly in a phase called Inflation. The BB Theory actually doesnt say anything about how that initial state came to be, and so it says nothing about how the universe was formed.

I see in this thread that some people have brought out the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This says something like "everything that begins to exist has a cause, etc". Unfortunately the argument fails right there out of the gate.

1. It fails to define "begins to exist".
2. It fails to define "cause".
3. The only "begins to exist"-type events in our universe that we know of dont actually have "causes". Virtual particles are created from energy as a statistical result of Quantum Mechanics. No cause ever causes them to be created. All other events in the universe are simply evolutions of current matter/energy from one state to another. So...
4. It fails to demonstrate that anything has ever begun to exist, much less...
5. It fails to prove that the universe began to exist, it only assumes it. There's really no reason why this must be the case. And if it did "begin to exist", a more likely explanation is that it began similar to how virtual particles are created, from some pre-existing physical laws in some pre-existing physical universe/multiverse.
6. It fails to provide any evidence whatsoever. This is a purely philosophical argument based on (faulty) logic. You cant use logic alone to prove anything about the universe. Only observation and physical evidence can lead to true knowledge about what exists. The rest is just speculation.

There are other problems with this type of argument. One problem is that as far as we know, time is only relevant in our universe. If this is the case, then there could not possibly be any "cause" that led to the creation of the universe, because cause and effect are simply meaningless without time. It's like asking "what's south of the South Pole?". The question makes no sense.

Expanding on point 5... this argument tries to use logic to demonstrate that the universe was created by an entity that can violate the rules of logic itself. So, in doing so the arguments negates the assumption that logic always applies, and as such it shoots itself down.

One other problem is that it's an argument from ignorance. It basically says "something must have created the universe, i dont know what that is, so it must be God". But, no. If the universe was indeed created by some "cause", then we can infer the following:

1. It was not created from "nothing", since at least time must have existed. So, no supernatural cause is needed to explain it.
2. We have no way (currently) to tell what created it. Anyone claiming that "God did it" is talking out of their ass.

Provide evidence that the universe began to exist.

Provide evidence that time exists outside of the universe. If not, how can any "cause" exist outside the universe?

@willpayton: it is not talking out of my ass to believe in god and that he created the big bang, and it makes sense to me to believe that, since there is no other explanation. It is not an argument of ignorance, it is my belief. And your Kalama cosmological stuff has nothing to do with what I said.

Also you're right there is no evidence that the universe began to exist, but that is also what is said about god (or some gods anyway) so again they go hand in hand, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

I don't want you to think I'm at a loss in your other thread; I'm carving your evidence of evolution into pieces. I already told you that the stuff was things that are being tested. To let you know, the parts that you split up individually can be rebutted all at one time (e.g. the attempt to connect a link between DNA and evolution).