A question about Atheism. Can I please have some answers to a response I placed to another question.?

Question

I believe that the existence of God is the only rational conlusion even without the bible. No I am not an atheist. I am open for persuasion, though. As I posted on another question I will be willing to declare myself as an atheist if anyone anywhere anytime can answer these questions.

Atheistic scientists state that all things came into creation at the point of the BIG BANG. But they have no answer for what was before the BIG BANG. So here's one question. If at some point in time there was nothing and then there was suddenly something, where did that something come from? I'm all ears.

Oh, yeah. But you might say it didn't come from anywhere. Matter has always existed. WOW. That sounds very similar to a Christian concept. It's called eternity. And that's where God exists in a spiritual sense.

Now question 2. If matter always existed before the BIG BANG but in a quiet non explosive form where did the energy come from that changed matter from non explosive to explosive. All scientists will concur that no chemical reaction can occur to change the state of energy of a chemical without being acted upon by an addition of some type of outside energy. So where did the energy come from to set off the BIG BANG.

Atheistic scientists love the laws of nature that they have "discovered" until those very laws lead them to the ultimate source of all knowledge --- God. At that point they tend to conveniently ignore the very same laws

Kathryn B Thanks for the input. You say that there may or may not have been matter before the big bang. Ok so pick either situation and give me answer to the question I posted associated with whichever option you choose. Thanks again.

Kathryn B. You can pick a side for the purpose of analysis and debate. The problem is no matter which side you pick there is no scientific answer.

Answer 1

some1 will give u an answer of some sort but it won't be about the question you are really asking. i love the way u worded it and now lets sit back and see what they come up with

im sure nothing

Answer 2

Not all atheists say the same thing. I say that the Big Bang is a theory and that there may or may not have been anything before the Big Bang. I say the same thing about the God theory.

I have no need to make up answers like "God did it" or "it was the Big Bang". There may be other theories or proofs that have not yet been tried. I am patient enough to wait until scientists discover how it all happened.

Until then, I remain a strong atheist. I see much more scientific proof for the scientific theories of evolution and the Big Bang than for the God theory.

What baffles me is that when people can't explain something they immediately say, "it must have been God". To me, that is meaningless. This is exactly how the gods of Greek and Egyptian mythology were created. The Christian God is no different.

Follow-up: I cannot pick a side as there is no proof for either theory regarding the existence of matter.

Answer 3

Ever seen the bumper sticker "God sait it - then BANG! it happened"?

The best answer I ever heard was the puslating universe - We had our Big Bang, Things are still expanding, until eventually gravity will overcome the force of the explosion and suck everything back together (black holes are the first step of this) and it starts all over again. For eternity. No telling how many cycles we have already been through in the past.
All this matter had to come from someplace, right? Creation? Well then, where did God come from? Who/what/when put God here so He could say "Let there be light.... yada, yada, yada?" If it's possible for the definition of God to be something that exists throughout eternity with no beginning and no ending, why can't we say the same about the universe?

The difference? FAITH! I can't prove that there is a being out there who has nothing better to do than make people out of sand and play the greatest version of Sims ever imagined, but it's easier than believing that everything and everybody around me is some kind of cosmic accident. I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I have FAITH that it will. I can't prove that there is an afterlife, but i believe and have faith that there is something beyond this realm. It's better than thinking I wam wasting my time on Earth because in the end I'm nothing but Worm Chow. Faith is admitting you can't prove something, but believing it to be true anyhow. Even our mathmaticians will admit that there are holes in their THEORIES(look that word up) that require conjecture and assumptions rather than black-and-white proof. Nothing turns me off from spiritual conversations faster than "Because it is written" (usually by a bunch of barefoot hippies who thought the earth was flat) or "But I can't understand that, so it must be made up."

We'll never prove which came first - the cosmic egg or the cosmic egg-layer. We just have to admit that some of us have FAITH in a creator, and some of us will never be able to swallow that pill.

Answer 4

Let's address both of your questions at the same time with the laws of conservation.

These state that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So assuming what you say in paragraph 3 is true it explains the origin of the subject of both questions. It makes a lot of sense to me that if not all... then most of the energy and matter within the entire universe has always existed. This is easier to believe than saying the same for god. Matter is a rudimentary thing... all that we know in the physical world is made of matter and energy. We are made of matter even. It makes sense for intelligence to arise from matter and energy but not vice versa. Intelligence is a very very complex thing... matter is a very very simple thing. It's hard to rationalize that something so complex can exist with out the simple makeup thereof.

Things in space expand and collide. Whose to say that some day in the very very distant future a mass of matter may accumulate and compress under it's own gravity until it reaches the point that its internal energy outweighs the external force and it explodes... another big bang.

If there were a god wouldn't it have to be nothing more than a force of some kind? kind of a track for things to follow and not necessarily a thinking creature that we envision? Just some food for thought.

Answer 5

"Atheistic scientists love the laws of nature that they have 'discovered' until those very laws lead them to the ultimate source of all knowlege -- God. At that point, they tend to conveniently ignore the very same laws." Can you give us a rational example of how those laws lead to the ultimate source of knowledge? Can you prove then that God is the ultimate source of knowledge? and what laws are they ignoring at that point? I simply cannot fathom why people cannot live with the idea of "we don't know that yet." We don't know yet how or why the Big Bang happened, but we know it did for many reasons including the cosmic background radiation. But what came before that, we simply don't know that yet and scientists are just fine with the idea of not knowing yet. And I certainly am not trying to convince you to become an atheist. Why should anyone want to do that? Why can't you just believe what you do and let others believe what they do? What is the point of all this?

Answer 6

Nobody knows what happened before the big bang… that doesn’t mean that we never will. The difference between you and most atheists or scientists is the curiosity to discover, and not being content with the answer “god did it”

I would like to add that there were people just like you arguing that the world was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe eventually your religion’s views changed. They will change on this as well.

Answer 7

Think about this: The uncontrolled conversion of matter into energy in the explosion of a nuclear bomb causes chaos, as was seen in Japan in the total destruction of Hiroshima and much of Nagasaki by such bombs in 1945. However, far from being chaotic, the universe is harmonious and beautiful! Consider, too, this marvelous earth with its amazing variety of life. Clearly, it could not have come into existence without some intelligent direction and control!
Have a look at Isaiah 40:26 - Whatever means God used to create the universe, he clearly has the energy and the power needed to do so

Any other intelligent questions? - email me

Answer 8

Scientists don't ignore the laws of nature. They accept that which can be explained and do not speculate on the remainder or at least attribute it to a mythical being. The Universe can be explained without the existence of a creator. There is no empirical evidence of the existence of a creator. To attibute the unexplainable to a God is merely to regress to the mistakes of the past where everything which could not be explained had to be assigned to something and that something was God. Time after time it has been shown that such assumption was irrational and has delayed scientific discovery. There are more reasons to reject any supernatural explanation that to accept one.

Answer 9

What you describe is known as the "turtles-on-turtles-on-turtles-on..." paradox (sounds kinda risque to me, but I digress).

Ultimately, you need an initiator. This much is true. Quantum physics cannot reach the point of the act of creation until such time as we manage to get rid of the theory of relativity (which we know to be incomplete) and reconstruct a model that incorporates quantum gravity.

So, which is more rational -- to wait and accept that science isn't all-knowing, is just a process, and see what it can answer tomorrow, OR, believe in something that by definition never had a beginning? Then your God will grow more and more impotent and meaningless as science answers more and more, because your God will only exist in the gaps of scientific knowledge.

Answer 10

Argument ad Ignorantium.

Look it up.

Btw, "Atheistic scientists state that all things came into creation at the point of the BIG BANG"

Atheism has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. It is straw man arguments like these that make rational discussion with theists impossible.

Answer 11

The best speculation these days is that the 'medium' was the physical vacuum. We know that an empty vacuum is far from being empty because in quantum mechanics, particles are free to appear and disappear within it, and this activity actually gives the vacuum 'state' a latent energy. So, the vacuum of space is far from being an inert and passive object and acts like a peculiar medium.