Or not. If you have a reason, please type it right down.
2007-05-09 07:43:52 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
dogsneeze says that God is not contingent, and therefor doesn't need a cause to exist.
2007-05-09 07:44:27 · update #1
Arguments that apply within the universe do not apply to the universe itself. I say the Big Bang is not contingent. It could be argued that God is not either, but first we have to prove he exists.
(((Dogsneeze is a great debater though. Sometimes I swear he could convince me I don't exists.))
2007-05-09 07:48:41 · answer #1 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Contingent has many definitions. I took, "Liable to occur, but not with certainty" as appropriate here.
The only events I can think of that occur for no reason are quantum mechanical, such as spontaneous emission. However, the macroscopic universe behaves in perfectly predictable ways, with mathematical certainty. Personally, I imagine there was a specific cause for the Big Bang. We just don't understand what it was, yet.
If a believer wanted to leap to the conclusion that God created the Big Bang, it would not be inconsistent with the known facts. Inversely, there's also no evidence to suggest God actually did create the universe via the BB. Stephen Hawking has proved that time began with the Big Bang. Unfortunately, we have little or no chance of ever learning what went on before the beginning of time.
I wonder how those who believe in Biblical inerrancy would react if cosmologists positively proved God did it, 14 billion years ago. Would they accept Genesis as an allegory, or would they continue to insist that God did the whole job in six days, just six-thousand years ago?
2007-05-09 15:22:43 · answer #2 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The BB was an effect of another cause, a source of energy that exploded into existence from an infinitesimally small point. On an almost daily basis, science is finding more answers about the universe and how that could have happened.
They have a "theory of everything" that even has ideas of where the energy came from that started the Big Bang. It talks of countless dimensions, universes and huge membranes.
It's so exciting to live in these times when the biggest questions are starting to be answered with real evidence.
Too bad so many are missing it because they have their nose stuffed into a two thousand year old book
Their loss...
2007-05-09 14:55:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Big Bang cannot, currently, be shown to be contingent or noncontingent. As such, much love to Dogsneeze, the contingency argument still falls flat.
2007-05-09 14:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
All things arise due to causes and conditions... yes, the theory of the Big Bang is one of those logical things. It could have been the causes and conditions for things to arise as they are, and the cause of the Big Bang would be the causes and conditions, the moment before it.
If you put something into motion it will stay in motion until something stops it... right? Who's to say it actually stops and if there really was a finite "push" beginning?
_()_
2007-05-09 14:50:15 · answer #5 · answered by vinslave 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the big bang must have had a cause. Now, the known cause of the big bang is unknown - it could be God made it happen, it could be two p-branes colliding in the metaverse. It could be that our universe fell in on itself, and then blew out again as a part of a normal cycle.
2007-05-09 14:49:38 · answer #6 · answered by Big Super 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe contingency is only an illusion and everything is ultimately based on mathematics and hence non-contingent. We tend to view things as space changing with time but relativity suggests that we view reality as non-contingent space-time. In my opinion space-time is simply mathematics masquerading as space-time.
2007-05-09 14:51:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋