Why can't theists also believe in a steady state universe or a big crunch universe or multiverses? Any particular reason why some god couldn't have created them too?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are there any good arguments for God?
- Thread starter Tiberius
- Start date
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
'Big Bang' was the term atheists like Hoyle used to mock the Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory. 'religious pseudoscience' they called it- explicitly for what THEY say as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event.
The implications only mysteriously vanished for them once it was proven beyond most reasonable doubt.
In stark contrast - static, eternal, steady state., Big Crunch, Multiverses were/are backed by atheists explicitly to 'make God redundant', and have all been debunked where testable
Tiberius,
First, allow me to point out what God's word says about people who cannot recognize God in creation, Romans 1:16-32. This, of course is an explanation of Teleology, or Cosmology, which is the argument for God or Proof of God.
Let me ask a simple question; is there anything in nature that is not a miracle to men?? There are several branches of science that just try to make some inferior copy of One of God's creations, for the betterment of mankind. When they make, even a poor replication of something in nature, they are extolled as great designers. But what about the Great Designer that made the original??? Only a vastly superior intelligence could have created all these millions of creations, that, every one, tests the limits of mankind's knowledge, just to search into the makeup of these magnificent creations, without being able to even make ONE thing better that the original.
Even, probably the most advanced thing that man has made, called a Super Computer which can make trillions of calculations a second, is nothing compared with the human mind, and we only use about 3 or 4 per cent of our mind. No camera ever made is anywhere near equal to the eye of man, or even bird's eyes, or some fish's eyes. Can man make a tree??? How could there be an intelligence so much superior to man's and not be God???
In the first book of the Bible, there is a law written that says that every living thing will reproduce, ONLY after it's kind. Men have tried to circumvent this law for generations, but it is impossible, and most scientists have given up trying. Man can put together ever particle that makes up a living thing, but they cannot make it live. God is the source of life, Psalms 36:9, Acts 17:24-28.
Let's take another line of reasoning. Ignorant,no faithless men have tried, some for all their lives to find something untrue in the Original Autographs of God's Holy Bible, but they have been unable to prove even ONE thing written in the Bible, inaccurate. How is that possible, if not for a God that promised to preserve His word from all generations??Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25. How is it possible that so many wicked men have tried to destroy the Bible, or keep it from being printed in languages understood by all people, but each year, it is the most reproduced book on earth?? The Bible is a miracle, unable to be explained, except by intelligent, faithful people!!!
Let's look at the Bible for a minute. The Bible was started in the year 1513BC. And was written by 40 men, over a period of 1,610 years. Every writer, in spite of being from many backgrounds, not only agreed in everything written, but added more information about things the earlier writer started, all things being in total harmony. This is just one miracle of God's Holy Spirit.
Written in the Bible is much information that no man on earth knew, but was inspired by God, 2Timothy 3:16,17, 2Peter 1:20,21. Who told Isaiah that the earth was circular, and hung on nothing, when no one knew, and most believed in myths in those days, Isaiah 40:22. Who told Moses who wrote Job 26:10. How did Moses, who wrote Genesis, know the exact order of creation, as admitted by scientists?
Much of the Mosaic Law was a miracle of knowledge, for those days, as it contained laws that protected he Israelites from all kinds of diseases, such as Trichinosis.
Just look around you, at all things natural, and tell me one thing that man can make, or even reproduce efficiently, and consider the Miracle of God's word, The Bible, and tell me you do not recognize a vastly superior mind, GOD, and I will repeat what the Bible, itself said, there is truly no Excuse, Romans 1:20!!!
First, allow me to point out what God's word says about people who cannot recognize God in creation, Romans 1:16-32. This, of course is an explanation of Teleology, or Cosmology, which is the argument for God or Proof of God.
Let me ask a simple question; is there anything in nature that is not a miracle to men?? There are several branches of science that just try to make some inferior copy of One of God's creations, for the betterment of mankind. When they make, even a poor replication of something in nature, they are extolled as great designers. But what about the Great Designer that made the original??? Only a vastly superior intelligence could have created all these millions of creations, that, every one, tests the limits of mankind's knowledge, just to search into the makeup of these magnificent creations, without being able to even make ONE thing better that the original.
Even, probably the most advanced thing that man has made, called a Super Computer which can make trillions of calculations a second, is nothing compared with the human mind, and we only use about 3 or 4 per cent of our mind. No camera ever made is anywhere near equal to the eye of man, or even bird's eyes, or some fish's eyes. Can man make a tree??? How could there be an intelligence so much superior to man's and not be God???
In the first book of the Bible, there is a law written that says that every living thing will reproduce, ONLY after it's kind. Men have tried to circumvent this law for generations, but it is impossible, and most scientists have given up trying. Man can put together ever particle that makes up a living thing, but they cannot make it live. God is the source of life, Psalms 36:9, Acts 17:24-28.
Let's take another line of reasoning. Ignorant,no faithless men have tried, some for all their lives to find something untrue in the Original Autographs of God's Holy Bible, but they have been unable to prove even ONE thing written in the Bible, inaccurate. How is that possible, if not for a God that promised to preserve His word from all generations??Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25. How is it possible that so many wicked men have tried to destroy the Bible, or keep it from being printed in languages understood by all people, but each year, it is the most reproduced book on earth?? The Bible is a miracle, unable to be explained, except by intelligent, faithful people!!!
Let's look at the Bible for a minute. The Bible was started in the year 1513BC. And was written by 40 men, over a period of 1,610 years. Every writer, in spite of being from many backgrounds, not only agreed in everything written, but added more information about things the earlier writer started, all things being in total harmony. This is just one miracle of God's Holy Spirit.
Written in the Bible is much information that no man on earth knew, but was inspired by God, 2Timothy 3:16,17, 2Peter 1:20,21. Who told Isaiah that the earth was circular, and hung on nothing, when no one knew, and most believed in myths in those days, Isaiah 40:22. Who told Moses who wrote Job 26:10. How did Moses, who wrote Genesis, know the exact order of creation, as admitted by scientists?
Much of the Mosaic Law was a miracle of knowledge, for those days, as it contained laws that protected he Israelites from all kinds of diseases, such as Trichinosis.
Just look around you, at all things natural, and tell me one thing that man can make, or even reproduce efficiently, and consider the Miracle of God's word, The Bible, and tell me you do not recognize a vastly superior mind, GOD, and I will repeat what the Bible, itself said, there is truly no Excuse, Romans 1:20!!!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The first two were posited explicitly to make a creator God redundant, by eliminating a creation event with an eternal/cyclical model 'no creation = no creator' :
After those were debunked, an infinite probability machine was proposed to overcome the insane odds of our universe being created accidentally-
I agree with you in a sense, even if there were a multiverse, I think God is still a far less improbable explanation for this universe.
i.e. I do not need to banish current atheist theories to believe in God, as atheists must banish God to give their theories a fighting chance. And we have no basis to rule either out.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
You can give support for a belief, but you don't give evidence for a belief. You can give evidence for facts and scientific theories, or use them as support for knowledge, but belief isn't knowledge. Beliefs is something people hold regardless of evidence. Most of the time, people believe because of reasons other than concrete evidence, so the best you can ask for is that support of reasons they might have. The reasons might be emotional or experiences, and very subjective.
Wrong. Sure, Hoyle absolutely did coin the term, and did so derisively. But despite Lemaitre's position neither Hoyle nor basically anybody else would have cared were it not for the implications of general relativity (the model which ACTUALLY gave us the big bang theory) and perhaps the empirical evidence (esp. CMB and the evidence from Hubble). He was vital in the development in the theory, but could not have begun his work without Einstein and could not have made it into anything without the empirical evidence; most importantly, there is more evidence for alterative cosmologies than he supplied or was capable of. Yet, of course, we find again the selective interpretation of evidence from cosmology and physics to support the idea that a particular cosmological model is somehow theistic and that we can write others off as somehow "atheistic".
And why couldn't your God have made steady state universes or Big Crunch universes or mulitiverses? If our universe was one of those how would that disprove they were made by some god?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Again it was the atheists who selectively made this distinction. Who explicitly preferred theories depending on how well they fit with their own beliefs
Lemaitre in stark contrast- went out of his way to disassociate his theory from his faith or any larger implications (because he could, he acknowledged he had such a thing) He even told the Pope to quit gloating.
If you don't think there were any theistic/Biblical implications inherent in the Big Bang, you would have had to have argued this with atheists at the time, not Lemaitre.
And if you don't think there were atheistic implications with steady state, Big Crunch, or multiverses, your argument would be with the atheists who came up with them. Including Hawking
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think he could make anything- including a 14 billion year old universe 6000 years ago- but I'm going by the best evidence we have, which is for a unique, singular creation event as the Bible describes.
The others are philosophical speculation
No idea. Very interesting reading about all the different beliefs and theories. Bumba is one of my favorite creator gods. http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/african-mythology.php?deity=BUMBA
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Your money is on Bumba?
If it had been theists who had come up with steady state universes or big crunch universes or multiverses what then?
What distinction? The big bang theory originated from the work of Einstein, who considered it a mistake The empirical evidence that convinced the physics community had nothing to do with theists or Lemaitre. This is just another special little blending of double-dipping and special pleading. Theists didn't come up with the big bang theory, they didn't discover the empirical evidence for it, they largely just decided to selectively interpret both the theory and the evidence, as you have by characterizing variant cosmological models as "atheist" whilst attributing Einstein's achievement to Lemaitre.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
They wouldn't- that's the point, the ideological lines could not be any clearer- and it has always been the atheists drawing those lines- to have science continually cross them.
multiverses were always the last retreat for atheism of the gaps- an inherently untestable infinite probability machine that can make anything at all- (except God of course)
One of many possible theist theories. I have also heard a different theist theory: That the Big Bang was God having a severe case of diarrhea. Atheists are hard at work right now trying to disprove them.
So what would you do if you were an atheist hell bent on proving some god didn't make the universe? No matter how the atheists claim the universe came into existence a theist can always claim some god was behind it all anyway.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
You already conceded that Hoyle coined the term as a pejorative, and it was explicitly because of the theistic implications of such an event.
Again, atheists made this distinction, not theists.
And when you are talking about validating the Biblical account of the origins of the universe, versus validating the atheist preference for uncreated God-refuting models..
It's not exactly a difficult distinction to see is it?
'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo. The theist has no motive to prematurely arrive at the simplest possible God refuting answer, he is always keen to follow the scientific evidence to the next deeper layer of discovery.
Why not? Does any of those theories prove some god couldn't be responsible?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Well why didn't they? why were they all self professed atheists who openly stated the atheist implications to their atheist theories?
Those models were all specifically designed to try to make God redundant, that was their basis, certainly not evidence