No, it's not. First of all, the definition of the Big Bang includes that it didn't start itself. Secondly, believing in God doesn't mean you can't believe in old earth or the Big Bang. I think that was how God created the universe.
It does mean you can't believe the Bible, though.
You need to do slightly more than just say 'No, it's not'. And there're several entirely naturalistic hypotheses promoted by theoretical physicists and Cosmologists that try to explain how our Universe came into existence.
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found. No, simple logic does.
No, it's not. First of all, the definition of the Big Bang includes that it didn't start itself. Secondly, believing in God doesn't mean you can't believe in old earth or the Big Bang. I think that was how God created the universe.
It does mean you can't believe the Bible, though.
I disagree with that statement, but this isn't the forum to argue.
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found. No, simple logic does.
I'm reasonably good at simple logic and it doesn't say that to me at all. Do you mean to suggest that in any case where we can't readily understand the intricacies of some natural process, that we should reach instead for a non-natural explanation?
"I am all in on creation by God" - perhaps but do you not understand that 'God' (whatever that is meant to be) is not some kind of default or fall-back explanation for anything?
In terms of what is explicable and justifiable by current understanding, it's more of a grasping-at-straws form of belief.
Eh, that seems an unfair characterization. The late Antony Flew, who stated his change from atheism to theism was the result of 'following the evidence where it leads,' would certainly dispute that his theistic position was a 'grasping-at-straws form of belief.'
You need to do slightly more than just say 'No, it's not'. And there're several entirely naturalistic hypotheses promoted by theoretical physicists and Cosmologists that try to explain how our Universe came into existence.
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found.
But that is still unsubstantiated faith-hope. One could equally argue that saying that also doesn't prove that a natural explanantion can be found.
As I stated in my list, it is a fair point to acknowledge that both theism and atheism ultimately have to appeal to an uncaused, non-contingent cause of the universe as an unproven 'brute fact' to avoid an infinite regress.
Then allow me to clarify ~ drawing any link between a conscious creator (deity) and the 'God' of mainstream religions is clutching at straws ~ is that better?
If, and it's a big if, we're forced to conclude that our Universe could only have emerged as the result of an act of conscious creation, this tells us very little about the nature of such a creator or the purpose for the creation.
When religious members refer to 'God', they usually have in mind the kind of deity that's described in their particular holy book, not some utterly distant entity that's barely aware of our existence.
One thing I've come to realise over the years is that if a person claims to believe 'X' as fact but can't actually define or even describe what 'X' is, they can't be said to believe it.
That's to say, if this thing called 'God' actually exists some defintion of its nature, its beginning and its powers/attributes needs to be given, otherwise what precisely are we being called upon to believe?
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found. No, simple logic does.
I'm reasonably good at simple logic and it doesn't say that to me at all. Do you mean to suggest that in any case where we can't readily understand the intricacies of some natural process, that we should reach instead for a non-natural explanation?
You are so far away from being in a position where you simply "can't readily understand the intricacies" that this post is laughable.
You (not personally, but science in general) cannot even begin to build the skeleton of an explanation of why there is something (as opposed to nothing), much less put any meat on the bones (readily understand the intricacies).
Then allow me to clarify ~ drawing any link between a conscious creator (deity) and the 'God' of mainstream religions is clutching at straws ~ is that better?
If, and it's a big if, we're forced to conclude that our Universe could only have emerged as the result of an act of conscious creation, this tells us very little about the nature of such a creator or the purpose for the creation. That is incorrect. It tells of he values orderliness. It tells us of the value he places on this planet and our place on it. The precision of the conditions that allow us to live here tells us a lot.
The build of a watch tells us much about the watchmaker. How much more the creation of the Universe?
When religious members refer to 'God', they usually have in mind the kind of deity that's described in their particular holy book, not some utterly distant entity that's barely aware of our existence.
You're getting close to admitting what I said at the beginning .... that is that you won't acknowledge that Prima Causation forces the acknowledgment of a supernatural Creator because of the implications that follow.
One thing I've come to realise over the years is that if a person claims to believe 'X' as fact but can't actually define or even describe what 'X' is, they can't be said to believe it.
That's to say, if this thing called 'God' actually exists some defintion of its nature, its beginning and its powers/attributes needs to be given, otherwise what precisely are we being called upon to believe?
The funny thing is that normally I'd agree with you on what seems at face value a common sense assertion, but personal experience has taught me otherwise that this isn't necessarily so. Case in point, scientists don't know how to define life, but surely that doesn't entail the conclusion therefore "they can't be said to believe it."
Then allow me to clarify ~ drawing any link between a conscious creator (deity) and the 'God' of mainstream religions is clutching at straws ~ is that better?
If, and it's a big if, we're forced to conclude that our Universe could only have emerged as the result of an act of conscious creation, this tells us very little about the nature of such a creator or the purpose for the creation. That is incorrect. It tells of he values orderliness. It tells us of the value he places on this planet and our place on it. The precision of the conditions that allow us to live here tells us a lot.
The build of a watch tells us much about the watchmaker. How much more the creation of the Universe?
When religious members refer to 'God', they usually have in mind the kind of deity that's described in their particular holy book, not some utterly distant entity that's barely aware of our existence.
You're getting close to admitting what I said at the beginning .... that is that you won't acknowledge that Prima Causation forces the acknowledgment of a supernatural Creator because of the implications that follow.
Not necessarily. There are cosmological models (e.g., Hawking-Hartle) that if true, circumvent the need for supernatural causation. But the larger point remains that to avoid an infinite regress both atheism and theism must ultimately posit an unexplained, uncaused non-contingency as a 'brute fact'--i.e., a fact that is unexplained; a fact for which there is no explanation. I do agree the scale tips more in favor of supernatural causation when one recognizes the universe's contingent finitude. But such an assertion still can't be proven in any conventional sense; nor can it be said that this is a "forced" foregone conclusion; and "God did it" is still an unexplained 'brute fact' assertion. It's only fair to acknowledge this.
Then allow me to clarify ~ drawing any link between a conscious creator (deity) and the 'God' of mainstream religions is clutching at straws ~ is that better?
If, and it's a big if, we're forced to conclude that our Universe could only have emerged as the result of an act of conscious creation, this tells us very little about the nature of such a creator or the purpose for the creation.
When religious members refer to 'God', they usually have in mind the kind of deity that's described in their particular holy book, not some utterly distant entity that's barely aware of our existence.
This is a separate issue altogether and seems far afield of the immediate subject at hand. But that said, I think I would probably still disagree. Serious academic work has been done on the subject, some of which you and I have previously discussed at length (e.g., Swinburne, Conway, Flew who defend the logic and coherence of an Aristotelian God with Judeo-Christian attributes). Even if for sake of argument such academic works are ultimately flawed and incorrect, I think it would still be unfair to characterize them as "clutching at straws."
No, it's not. First of all, the definition of the Big Bang includes that it didn't start itself. Secondly, believing in God doesn't mean you can't believe in old earth or the Big Bang. I think that was how God created the universe.
It does mean you can't believe the Bible, though.
I disagree with that statement, but this isn't the forum to argue.
Actually, in this forum you can, so by all means, please expound. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
@SPickwick, @Kjav, @TruthMuse, @stephen_33 and anyone else I missed:
***For me, the bigger issue (and problem) in discussions like this is that people are already entrenched in their respective metaphysical view. Just once it would be nice (and more productive) if respective sides could be fair enough to acknowledge weaknesses (or at least outstanding, unsolved problems) in their position. We should also be fair enough to acknowledge the current state of knowledge on any given subject. It was to this end that I posted my list, which I will restate again:
The current state of things....
1. To avoid an infinite regress one must ultimately posit a non-contingent uncaused first cause as a 'brute fact' that cannot be proved. For theists, this is God; for atheists/agnostics, this is a non-boundary universe or multiverse or some such alternative. Either way, everyone has to start with a brute fact that they can't prove or explain.
2. Science has no natural explanation for the existence of the physical laws and constants that govern our universe, and why they are the way that they are. [I have modified this based on constructive feedback from @stephen_33]
3. The evidence for the Big Bang expansion and evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years is substantial. There are no competing theories that explain the observational evidence as well. [Note: the 'Big Bang' theory does not explain how the universe ultimately came to exist, nor can it tell us who or what 'caused' it.]
4. Substantial evidence also indicates that the Earth (and universe) is much older than 6,000 years. The 'young-earth' alternative does not explain or account for the observational evidence as well.
5. Our sum total scientific knowledge indicates that life is not a spontaneous thermodynamic process. That is, life is not deterministic. It is not an inevitable product of natural law. It also seems statistically impossible for life to originate by chance (In fact, we don't even know what that probability is. It is at present incalculable. We don't even know all the chance events that would need to occur, because a plausible pathway from nonlife to life has not been demonstrated--*even in theory*). If we were to draw conclusions based on the sum total scientific evidence to date, then we would have to conclude that it is not possible for life to naturally arise from nonlife. Abigoenesis remains an unproven working assumption in science that has not been empirically demonstrated.
6. The evidence for biological evolution, common ancestry, and the relatedness of organisms is also substantial. There are no competing theories that explain the evidence as well.
7. We have no geological evidence that there has ever been a global flood at any time during the history of the Earth.
8. The Genesis 1 creation account is most similar to Egyptian creation myths and seems to be a direct theological polemic and refutation of those Egyptian myths.
This is an honest presentation of the current state of knowledge on these subjects...
Then allow me to clarify ~ drawing any link between a conscious creator (deity) and the 'God' of mainstream religions is clutching at straws ~ is that better?
If, and it's a big if, we're forced to conclude that our Universe could only have emerged as the result of an act of conscious creation, this tells us very little about the nature of such a creator or the purpose for the creation. That is incorrect. It tells of he values orderliness. It tells us of the value he places on this planet and our place on it. The precision of the conditions that allow us to live here tells us a lot.
The build of a watch tells us much about the watchmaker. How much more the creation of the Universe?
When religious members refer to 'God', they usually have in mind the kind of deity that's described in their particular holy book, not some utterly distant entity that's barely aware of our existence.
You're getting close to admitting what I said at the beginning .... that is that you won't acknowledge that Prima Causation forces the acknowledgment of a supernatural Creator because of the implications that follow.
Not necessarily. There are cosmological models (e.g., Hawking-Hartle) that if true, circumvent the need for supernatural causation. But the larger point remains that to avoid an infinite regress both atheism and theism must ultimately posit an unexplained, uncaused non-contingency as a 'brute fact'--i.e., a fact that is unexplained; a fact for which there is no explanation. I do agree the scale tips more in favor of supernatural causation when one recognizes the universe's contingent finitude. But such an assertion still can't be proven in any conventional sense; nor can it be said that this is a "forced" foregone conclusion; and "God did it" is still an unexplained 'brute fact' assertion. It's only fair to acknowledge this.
Are you saying that Hawkins gave a plausible theory for the origin of energy and matter that didn't involve energy or matter?
Nope, I didn't say that
You need to do slightly more than just say 'No, it's not'. And there're several entirely naturalistic hypotheses promoted by theoretical physicists and Cosmologists that try to explain how our Universe came into existence.
Being at the very early stage where we're struggling to understand how the Universe could have emerged from a natural cause, doesn't mean that no such explanation can be found.