The Big Bang as evidence for God

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

 

[`mud]

I'm not sure what your trying to say,
but I've been saying it for years !
Einstein was almost right, and also you.
~
'mud

 

[Windwalker]

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

You of course do realize that one of the most common ways to speak of God is that God is timeless? Time exists "within" or upon timelessness like a line is drawn upon paper. The line is not separate from the paper but rather is experienced and understood because of the paper on which it's drawn. It cannot be thought of dualistically as separate to or outside of "it".

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

For argument's sake, I would say the description of "uncaused cause" in not invalid, but can only be taken as highly metaphorical at best. I would agree that those who think of "God" in the sense of an "entity" outside time acting upon it the way I might paint a picture on a canvas are stuck in fact in this linear thought you describe. In that sense it's not causality in the sense we think of. Those that argue it from that perspective hear and think of things like "eternal" in the sense of infinite time. It's stuck in the timeline sense, and their arguments for God as "first cause" reflects that. But like anything where describing something like "God" language will break apart and can only be approached as a highly symbolic metaphor at best, rather than trying to "define" God. I think "Uncaused Cause" can be understood symbolically, but hardly if we try to confine it to these terms as part of a process, as you pointed out.

 

[viole]

You of course do realize that one of the most common ways to speak of God is that God is timeless? Time exists "within" or upon timelessness like a line is drawn upon paper. The line is not separate from the paper but rather is experienced and understood because of the paper on which it's drawn. It cannot be thought of dualistically as separate to or outside of "it".


For argument's sake, I would say the description of "uncaused cause" in not invalid, but can only be taken as highly metaphorical at best. I would agree that those who think of "God" in the sense of an "entity" outside time acting upon it the way I might paint a picture on a canvas are stuck in fact in this linear thought you describe. In that sense it's not causality in the sense we think of. Those that argue it from that perspective hear and think of things like "eternal" in the sense of infinite time. It's stuck in the timeline sense, and their arguments for God as "first cause" reflects that. But like anything where describing something like "God" language will break apart and can only be approached as a highly symbolic metaphor at best, rather than trying to "define" God. I think "Uncaused Cause" can be understood symbolically, but hardly if we try to confine it to these terms as part of a process, as you pointed out.

"Uncaused cause" is question begging. It makes the assumption that the Universe is an effect (begging the question of a cause, since they always come in pairs, allegedly).

Is it an effect? How do we know? By empirical evidence that everything else is an effect when time is already in place, so to speak? Or because big explosions are usually caused by TNT and similar things?

NB: for the rest of the discussion I remove my eternalist and B-theorist hat.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

"Uncaused cause" is question begging. It makes the assumption that the Universe is an effect (begging the question of a cause, since they always come in pairs, allegedly).

It makes no assumption at all. Metaphor. I was pretty clear in my post. It's not meant nor intended to be a scientific description. But if you want to talk about it at all you have to use some language. The error is when you consider it a definition that can be considered in those terms. Hence why I stated, "Highly metaphoric".

 

[outhouse]

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

Devils advocate

Just because OUR time and space was created with the BB, does not have anything to do with another time period outside of our universe that may or may not exist.


ALSO Our time very well may extend outside our universe. IF space is the same fabric outside of the walls of our expanding universe, then time could theoretically also exist.

 

[outhouse]

You of course do realize that one of the most common ways to speak of God is that God is timeless?

Who defined that aspect of said concept ????

 

[outhouse]

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

Agreed

The argument has always been fallacious

 

[`mud]

Fallaciousness runs amuck in these threads !
~
'mud

 

[Windwalker]

Who defined that aspect of said concept ????

Just re-read the post.

 

[Milton Platt]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

This topic is a regular one here. Theists will tell you their god exists outside of time and space. They have never been quite able to say where outside of time and space is, nor how they know this to be true.

As far as we know, existence requires a time dimension.

 

[outhouse]

Just re-read the post.

You claimed God is timeless.

Who defined that aspect of said concept ????

 

[Windwalker]

You claimed God is timeless.

I did not. Read my words carefully. "One of the most common ways to speak of God is that God is timeless"

Who defined that aspect of said concept ????

Who is saying it's a definition? My exact words were, ""One of the most common ways to speak of God is that God is timeless". A description is different from a definition. And who said anything about concepts? It's a description of experience that is one of the most common people use to speak of their experience. I chose my words carefully. I most always do.

 

[outhouse]

My exact words were, ""One of the most common ways to speak of God is that God is timeless".

Where did people who speak of god get this timeless idea?

 

[viole]

It makes no assumption at all. Metaphor. I was pretty clear in my post. It's not meant nor intended to be a scientific description. But if you want to talk about it at all you have to use some language. The error is when you consider it a definition that can be considered in those terms. Hence why I stated, "Highly metaphoric".

I usually interpret "It has no scientific explanation/description" with "let me say what I want, since I do not require evidence for what I say, for I am spiritual, not scientific!".

Like the ridiculous claim that the Bible is not intended to be a scientific book. Who claims that? Science is a tool to find truths. A book inspired by God does not need tools. It should just explain what is true.

Unfortunately, it is contradicted by simple human tools after the first few lines.

Unless we demote to metaphorical what is obviously wrong. As usual. The ultimate cop-out that makes any claim viable:

1) Metaphorical: what we see today as obviously wrong
2) Literal: what we do not see today as obviously wrong. Might become metaphorical later.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

Where did people who speak of god get this timeless idea?

Again, the answer is in the words I typed which you read. "It's a description of experience that is one of the most common people use to speak of their experience. I chose my words carefully. I most always do.".

 

[outhouse]

Again, the answer is in the words I typed which you read. "It's a description of experience that is one of the most common people use to speak of their experience. I chose my words carefully. I most always do.".

That is a non reply to a direct quote you supplied. I asked YOU why most people describe this experience

It is relevant to the title.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause

I follow what you are saying.

 

[Quintessence]

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

While I follow and agree with much of the logic you present here, I can't help but consider that the creator-god of the classical monotheisms is, in many respects, a deliberately obtuse and abstract god-concept. In other words, I would fully expect such an obtuse god-concept to fly in the face of such logic - to defy that to our minds, there was to space-time for a cause to happen - because it is beyond such things entirely. It's supposed to be nebulous and mysterious and ineffable, isn't it? Or rather, if you can analyze the one-god logically, it is no longer what it is intended to be, right?

I'll happily defer to the studied theologians of the one-god on this, though.

 

[Milton Platt]

Where did people who speak of god get this timeless idea?

Isn't there a bible verse that says something like from everlasting to everlasting? They cannot avoid making him timeless or they would then have to figure out who or what preceeded him.

The one I want them to explain is how something can exist outside of time, as they often claim. Time is a component of existence. If there is no time where he is supposed to be, he cannot have existed eternally. That is a measure of time. They can't say that it is a reference to our time because our time had a beginning.