ok, i'll make it a little bit simpler...?

Question

christians assert that there is a god and he created the laws of physics.
atheists assert that there isn't any proof of a god, therefore one does not exist.
most atheists believe that the universe was created during the big bang.
christians ask, if there is no god, what caused the big bang?
my question is, if christians believe there are no laws of physics without god, why do they expect an answer that will agree with the laws of physics and thus the existence of a god from atheists? couldn't atheists just as easily use the argument that since there are no laws of physics without god, anything is possible? of course, even christians would consider that a silly idea, otherwise, they wouldn't ask what caused the big bang. therefore, isn't it more logical to assume that laws of physics were not created by some "intelligent agent" than to assume that they were?

in other words, the assertion is by most christians that even if god doesn't exist, any explanation which proves the big bang must agree with the laws of physics. therefore, the laws must exist independent of any designer. does that make sense?

blessed, that last question remains to be determined. however it's foolish to jump to a conclusion when you don't have all the details, let alone when the details you do have prove otherwise.

monte, good quote. although, i think even einstein would be humble enough to say that he doesn't know everything.

Answer 1

Hey, you promised to make it simpler!

For one thing, most atheists do not say that since there is no proof of god, one does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins does not go that far. Chapter 4 of "The God Delusion" is titled "Why there ALMOST CERTAINLY is no god." My take on this is that he's covering the fact that we do not have a single agreed-upon definition of the word "god," and it is possible to write one which is sufficiently naturalistic that it exists.

But as to a creator-God like the Bible describes, the argument I usually use is that enough other things are not scientifically true which are in the Bible that there is no reason to believe that God is as the Bible describes. Once you acknowledge that some of it is untrue, how can it function as evidence (standing alone) that any part of it is true?

I think the fundamentalists acknowledge the logic of this, and use it against more moderate Christians. They really need to treat it as an all-or-nothing belief, because otherwise the first things to go would be those which are contradicted within the Bible. Next would be those which are contradicted by all evidence which is external to the Bible. Open the door to those doubts, and the whole house of cards collapses.

Answer 2

Your first assertion that the "big bang" created the earth is flawed on two points. First, you assert that a chaotic event (explosion) brought about order, we simply do not find this to be, chaos does not natural become order, it is the other way around, order deteriorates into chaos, without some outside force preserving the order. Secondly, a chaotic event cannot "create" anything. Creation means something coming from nothing. At best, it changes the form of the materials involved in the chaotic event, but it does not bring about new materials.
The laws of science determine there is order. A chaotic, random universe would not, in itself, produce stable, reliable laws. If, as you assert, we live in a random universe without any intelligence holding it together, how can you assume what is a law of physics today, will be one tomorrow? The laws of science would be malleable, subject to change, if we truly lived in a random universe. The fact that we have stable, reliable laws that do not change in themselves, gives evidence to an ultimate law giver, or designer.

Answer 3

Only in your mind, curious. In the Army we learned not to just make assumptions and prop them up as truth. Assumptions can get people killed. Notice the first three letters in the word? Frankly, assumption isn't a logical basis for drawing any valid conclusion unless your 'conclusion' is drawn upon a figment of your own imagination. Just because you assume (or would rather believe) that God doesn't exist cannot mean that He doesn't.

Just because you look one way doesn't mean it is safe to walk across the street. I've seen crack heads draw upon this kind of rationale, too. At this rate of guessing and brain stumping it will take atheists a very large number with several zeros behind it in light years to bump into the truth. In other words; you cannot define the truth on your terms. The truth exists on its own terms or it would be relative. You do believe in your own existence don't you? The realities of physics are not based upon your own perception of them or dependent upon your dawdling arrival to this perception. The laws existed before you did. They also existed long before scientists could apply names and associate an understanding to them.

The only way your meaningless universe can exist is within your own mind due to a limited use of mental faculties. Some are still trying to use Biology books to explain Music theory. The real substance of life doesn’t materialize upon this type of argument. So, it wouldn't be at all logical to assume anything. The truly intelligent thing to do would be to admit that you don't know everything and stop pretending that there is no reality other than the one you have chosen to accept.

God loves even if you don't believe in Him.

Answer 4

Since proof isn't possible for this question and no one truly could know for certain the absolute correct answer, I will share my thoughts on the subject. I consider myself a christian (I beleive Jesus was here) and do not see any conflict with the big bang theory or multiple big bangs from an intelligent designer (Our creator or God). Finger of God?

Christians do question the impetus of the big bang theory because it's hard to imagine something coming from nothingness. I do not see many contridictions in scientific theories from creation theories. The Bible to me is a wonderful book written by humans, symbollic stories, thoughts and experiences. I don't consider the bible to be nonfiction reference, nor do I interpret it in the literal sense. There is wisdom and knowledge that can be gained from reading the bible that cannot be obtained elsewhere.

Having a hypothosis is necessary when trying to prove or disprove any scientific theory, including physics. Why limit ourselves to only one hypothosis? I think we as humans have a responsibility to question and explore them all, including the theories of the bible.

Great question Gee!

Answer 5

Yes, that does make better sense. I don't agree with it, but at least I understand what you are trying to say this time.

Here is what I say, any fool can see that the laws of physics do exist, therefore, we must assume that they have either always been in place, or that some being created them. So either God exists, or the laws of physics always existed. Regardless of whether the laws of physics always existed, or if God created them, how can the laws of physics explain an explosion resulting in order?
The evidence I have does not prove otherwise, but if I share the evidence I have you will refuse to look at it.

Answer 6

Out of nothing, nothing comes.

SomeTHING or someONE had to set things in motion to create the Universe. Several theories have been proposed to explain the Big Bang -- these range from universes that spawn new universes to quantum field energy fluxes, to a host of other things. The problem, however, is that these theories only push back the question of what started it all. Worse, there is no observable scientific evidence that can support these theories.

"The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Robert Jastrow, PhD Theoretical Physics & recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, in God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107

Answer 7

I think you are missing the point that just because there are laws of physics, this does not nagate the fact that there is a God who created these laws.
Actually, looking at the marvelous way this universe is made, it only makes me believe in God more! All this just happened out of a big bang? That takes way more faith to believe than I have.

Answer 8

to answer one of the dudes that answered

at the time einstein lived science was nowhere near as advanced as it is now. I mean, the periodic table of the elements was a RECENT discovery when he developed his theory of relativity. They only observed the structure of atoms in the 20s. the structure of DNA wasn't discovered until the 50s. The modern computer would have seemed like magic in 1955, the year einstein died.

Saying that Einstein believed in a non specific 'higher power' does not support christianity.
You are making 2 assumptions.
1. That Einstein is by default the most intelligent human being ever, and his opinion on everything is the truth.
2. That when he said that he believed in a higher power he was referring to the christian god that you believe in.

Answer 9

Let me paraphrase Einstein. During an interview with Look magazine, he was asked what his feelings were concerning the big bang theory. Einstein stated that while he was indeed a proponent of the big bang theory, he felt there had to be ' a mover and a shaker' behind it, otherwise it would be like believing an explosion occurred at a print shop and all the letters landed in such a way to form an unabridged dictionary.

Answer 10

There is an alternative answer - and it is with 'the creation' theory - where it is a process, and not an entity. This is covered in 'The Spiritual Teachings' information, located at www.figu.org (English Discussion Forum) - which is information by the Plejarens (formerly the Pleiadians) via the UFO contactee Billy Meier.