A question from a student: If the Big Bang theory is true, then the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, it had to be created. Not necessarily by an old geezer with a long white beard who intones like John Gielgud, but there had to be some catalyst of some kind. Intelligent or not, it created the universe and is therefore the creator. I would appreciate it if you could come up with a good argument against this.
Mark Hume, OU student.
My reply: Here you are asking about the first cause, or also known as the first cause argument.
As you mentioned, we have a scientific theory that discusses a Big Bang. The theory goes on to explain that the Universe is the result of a massive explosion so great that it created the Universe as we know it. Assuming that everything has a first cause we then need to ask what was the cause for the Big Bang. Some would argue that God created the Big Bang. Therefore God is the first cause. However, this is a contradiction because if everything has a first cause, then God cannot be the ultimate creator because he needs a cause too.
So, some might say that another God created God, but then you would have to ask who created the God who created the God? Therefore, you would need to follow this path ad infinitum until you have a infinite chain of connections of creators for the creators. Some would dismiss this and would suggest that God is the exception to all of the rules of the Universe. As God does not apply in the realms of logic and naturalism, then those who say He exist will say he just came into existence out of nothing. In that, they make God the exception to the rule and assert that God is the first cause. But why should we stop with God? Why not suggest that the Big Bang came out of nothing? It is just as tangible, is it not? Well no it is not, as we still have the contradiction of the first cause argument to settle.
Let me illustrate the first cause argument another way….
You may have a mountain view outside your window. You might ask what created the mountain? You could answer that the Earth’s plates moved together and pushed the ground up to create the mountain. You would then ask what created the Earth? You could answer that a whole bunch of space debris came together by the force of gravity and formed the planet. You would then ask what created the debris and you could say the Big Bang. But then you would ask what created the Big Bang? And here is where we get stuck! What is the first cause of the Big Bang?
So I now suggest that the question asked does not make sense, and let me demonstrate why…
What is north of England? Scotland. What is north of Scotland? Iceland? What is north of Iceland? The Arctic Circle. Then what is north of the Arctic Circle? The North Pole. And what is north of the North Pole? Well, um….nothing you would say, and you would be right! You see, the final question does not make sense. You cannot go further north than the North Pole as nothing can be more north than north.
As a result, using the first cause argument we ultimatley encounter an unanswerable question. So we are left with a few options. We choose either:
a) Answer the question and say the Big Bang has a cause, but we haven’t discovered it yet.
b) We stop at God being the first cause.
c) We say that the Big Bang just happened and that’s the first cause.
d) Or we accept the question doesn’t even makes sense.
None the options given are satisfactory and here’s why, for each option:
a) The problem is that once we identify the cause we have to ask the question for the solution to the preceeding cause.
b) God becomes the focus of the question and we get the same problem as shown with ‘a)’.
c) Did the Big Bang really happen with no cause? I don’t think so!! I’m still not happy with the answer.
d) If we say the question doesn’t make sense, then what is the right question?
Readers of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy will all smile and have realised the problem pointed out here already. The problem isn’t finding the right answer, the problem is asking the right question!
Based on an idea from: The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law.
Interesting theory – however the argument lacks 1 vital missing ingredient. If you turn to Genesis on the first day God said “let there be light”! On the first day God created the first day, what I mean is that on the first day God created time and then throughout the course of the next 5 days he created the mountains, the trees, mankind and the rest of the universe.
This creation may have taken the form of a big bang, the chances of the big bang being an accident is as likely as a paint factory exploding and getting the Oxford English Dictionary.
Where did God come from? Who created the creator? The most important question is none of these but how long is infinity. Infinity is very long you may say – this answer is incorrect. Infinity is infinity – it cannot be measured, it stands outside of time or is so big you cannot measure it. God is Infinity, he was here before time and indeed created time. When Moses asked who God was he said “I AM”, Revelation (last book of the Bible) talks about God being the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
God doesn’t need to be created because he stands outside of time, God just IS! Nothing was before God because before God there was nothing!
Can stuff happen uncaused or not? If not then nothing exists. So it can.
The question is not how long is infinity. I saw God’s bum on the Sistine chapel ceiling last week and it was pretty pert. So it can’t be that long.
What was going on before time? Now that’s a question that certainly doesn’t make sense.
And anyway, why exactly did God sit around twiddling his thumbs for an eternity before making the world? Keeping his bum in good shape?
But seriously, saying there is an infinite past, is mathematically equivalent to saying that time has no beginning. And that therefore all this beginning of time stuff cannot exist.
Sorry, infinite past => no beginning. The converse implication does not hold.
Quote:
“What was going on before time? Now that’s a question that certainly doesn’t make sense.
But seriously, saying there is an infinite past, is mathematically equivalent to saying that time has no beginning. And that therefore all this beginning of time stuff cannot exist.”
Course it makes sense! The earth has a beginning, it started. Maybe it was the first milli second of the Big Bang. But my argument is that God is not bound by time because he created time. The first millisecond of the Bid Bang, or the instant that God created the first light was when time started. In short time does have a begining but God does not because before time there was no time.
It’s not any easy one to get your head around becuase we are bound by time, we are born, live and we die but an infinate being doesn’t have to have a begining.
Unless you have a time machine, the solution to what caused the big bang will never be agreed.
The big bang cannot fully be proven scientifically as our known physical theories break down the closer we get to the start of the big bang.
People trying to disprove God with science are fighting a losing battle. Some people look towards the church to explain the unexplainable/unthinkable. And there will ALWAYS be something that has not been explained by science.
If God exists outside of time – at what point did he decide to create time?
Other Joe,
Before means ‘at an earlier time’. If there was a beginning to time, there was nothing ‘before’ it, because ‘before’ would imply that time already existed.
The idea of ‘before time’ is indeed difficult to get your head around, because it is self-contradictory. A bit like the Trinity perhaps. 🙂
Give your confusion a name, call it a theological concept, and when it no longer troubles you, claim to have understood it.
The question that should be asked is “Why does something have to have created it at all?”
We will, at some point, demonstrate that the whole thing is part of a continual cyle – big bang, big crunch, big bang etc.
I believe that, far from it being a one off, unlikely event, it will be shown to be (like the occurrence of life) a statistical certainty.
The universe is infinite, there is no start and there is no end. It just is. It always has been and it always will be. God and questions of creation have no place here.
Quote:
If God exists outside of time – at what point did he decide to create time
If you read my response to the first post the very first thing God created was time, when he said “let there be” that was when time begin.
Quote:
The idea of ‘before time’ is indeed difficult to get your head around, because it is self-contradictory. A bit like the Trinity perhaps.
Not really if you read any decent book on Astropysics it isn’t really that hard to accept, the rules of time can easily be bent especially if you are able to travel at the speed of light (well near speed of light because speed of light is impossible). Most objects as they accelerate change shape and defy the laws of physics in all kinds of ways.
If you read my argument and understand it then it makes perfect sense, maybe I am not explaining it well enough? The easiest thing to do however is call something contradictory if you don’t understand it.
The trinity is very easy to understand but if you struggle this may help. H20 can be in 3 forms, Gas = Steam, Water = Liquid, Ice = solid. It’s still H20. But the trinity is a sperate argument for another day, let’s keep on about the Big Bang!
Other Joe,
Which decent book on Astrophysics talks about ‘before time’?
You seem to be talking about relativity, but the theories of relativity are rules, they are not bendings of some other rules.
Anyway, I am not saying that ‘before time’ is physically impossible, I am saying that it is semantically meaningless. Before means ‘at an earlier time’.
Good I am glad that you agree that ‘before time’ is not physically impossible. There are no books on Astrophysics that talk about ‘before time’. My Astrophysics reference refers to travelling at the speed of light and the way that we measure time is different. I suppose I have tried to over simplify the discussion.
Anyway, I am not saying that ‘before time’ is physically impossible, I am saying that it is semantically meaningless. Before means ‘at an earlier time’.
Yes before time is almost contradictionary as ‘before’ is a unit of time however I am sure you get the point I am trying to make and indeed it proves my point. There doesn’t have to be a ‘before the big bang’ because time does not exist. Therefore the concept of an infinate being (God) can exist.
There is no need to bring physics or theology or mathematics into this argument, it is just a matter of logic. By definition the universe is “everything that exists” therefore outside the universe there is nothing, no matter, no space, no time, no gods, nothing. Or to put it another way “outside the universe” is a nonsense.
If we try to trace back time we can only do this from within the universe, since there is no outside of the universe. The problem to be decided therefore is the nature of time. There are various theories, but none yet seems conclusive.
Other Joe,
Because ‘before time’ is meaningless, claims about its physical possibility are also meaningless. Before time is like a square circle.
I do appreciate what you’re trying to say. But I suggest that it is difficult to articulate because it is not a coherent idea.
Hi George
If you want to apply logic to an discussion here is a logical discussion: I am sat at a computer and due to the complexity of how it operates I assume it was designed by a designer and was created by a creator. I look at the world in which we live which is far more complex than a computer and therefore draw the same conclusion.
Joe Otten – I beg to differ I think it is very coherent, ‘before time’ doesn’t have to have a ‘physical possibility’ because with a God you are not dealing with a physical being.
God is infinate, no beginning and no end. Within infinity sits time and the universe. Which will start and finish. Time and the universe has a beginning and an end because God is infinate he sits outside of time. Therefore there doesn’t have to be a before the big band or before time because like you said before time is like a square circle. I hope this makes more sense to you now.
Other Joe,
Is it possible for a pghaoigheioahgioehgioases to exist?
It is a meaningless question, just like ‘what existed before time?’
Now you tell me (as good as) that a pghaoigheioahgioehgioases doesn’t have to be a physical possibility. Which seems to be missing the point, that the word is meaningless.
The universe is, by definition, everything that exists. You are saying that God is not part of the universe. I agree. He doesn’t exist.
As we try to trace time back to its origin, from within the universe, it seems to me that as we approach its ‘origin’ it must begin to become incoherent because there is no way it can be measured any more. Clocks cannot exist in a chaotic state. To extend Joe O’s analogy clocks go haywire as we approach the year zero, in the same way as compasses go haywire as we near the north (magnetic) pole.
There is still the question of why something exists rather than nothing. It may be possible to answer this by using a bit of ‘fuzzy logic’ which says that no concept is definite but has fuzzy edges. On this basis ‘absolute nothingness’ is an unstable concept. If it becomes even slightly fuzzy it becomes ‘something’. So things exist because that is the more probable situation.
Joe _ says that his idea of ‘God’ is a nonphysical being. But presumably he would still say that God ‘exists’ . This God would therefore be a part of the universe, within the universe, although the universe would now ‘exist’ in different ways, physical and nonphysical.
I’m not going to be drawn into the ‘intelligent design’ argument here, or into vague, non-mathematical, notions of a mystical ‘infinity’. Let’s keep to the original question.
Quote Joe:
The universe is, by definition, everything that exists. You are saying that God is not part of the universe. I agree. He doesn’t exist.
The universe is the summation of all matter that exists not everything that exists. The universe is everything that physically exists (matter) not everything that exists. I believe in a physical realm and a spirtual realm. The physical is the universe, the spiritual is the ‘heavenly realms’ (to quote the bible). So yes George I do believe the universe does ‘exist’ in different ways, physcial and non physical but I prefer to think of this as the universe (known matter) and the heavenlies (unknown matter).
Joe you seem to have a very black and white outlook on this subject and I still think it is very grey area. Even some scientists think that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse. To say the universe is everything, God is not in the universe and therefore God does not exist is far too simplistic. Considering how little we know about the universe and how little we know of the non physcial aspects of human nature I find it hard to go along with this line of thinking.
Joe _ accepts that his idea of ‘God’ exists and that it has a non-physical or, now he says, ‘spiritual’ existence, but what does this mean? Are there other things that have non-physical existence? Yes, they are called concepts or ideas, like Democracy or Pegasus or Sherlock Holmes.
These non-physical things exist within the physical universe, within the minds of human beings or in their communication systems. (So it could be argued that in a sense they are actually physical, taking the form of ink on paper or nerve impulses in the brain and so on.)
My conclusion therefore is that ‘God’ exists, but it was the Universe that created God, not the other way round! God exists in the minds of people. And minds capable of this sort of thought may perhaps only have been around for about 10,000 years. before that the Universe was godless.
Joe (not Otten),
Your concept of God has many problems and by this I say it is an irrational concept. Examples of irrational concepts are: a square circle; a closed open door; a red green paint; and so on.
You see Joe, you say that God is infinite, and by this I assume that you mean God is all powerful and all knowing. Now, for anything to exist, you have to define attributes and when you do this, you limit the concept to have particular definitions – that is, you give it a nature. With this reasoning, you cannot say God is everything, infinite and all powerful, because when you assign God an attribute you restrict that very concept. We end up with a very messy idea and it would be irrational to ignore these problems and accept it as it is. In the end, you end up with an incoherent argument and forever painting yourself into a square round corner with red green paint, and the open closed door behind in front of you!
Now, I assume you are a person of deep faith, and it must be very difficult for you to have these emotional ideas challenged, but if you are to discuss your ideas and beliefs, you have to accept the challenges put before you. If after you have really thought about all of these problems and continue to assert that your idea of God exists, then we must either accept defeat in bringing you to a rational position, or you must give us a convincing argument how this can be so. That is, the burden of proof lies firmly in your hands, and we all wait in great anticipation for anyone to do this.
Finally, even though you brought up God as the first cause, you failed to apply the first cause argument to your own suggestion. The whole point of this article was to show the very problem of what ultimately came first. Have another read, and think about the contradiction within the question.
Your views have been interesting and it has fuelled debate :), so do continue to visit and have your say!
Adam
Other Joe,
The multiverse and other meta-universe theoreies are still physical. You aren’t arguing that God exists in a parallel physical universe. So these theories don’t change the argument much. The only change they make is that they suggest something physical beyond the currently observable universe, and would probably therefore favour a new steady state theory of which various big bangs are a consequence.
You believe that in addition to whatever phyiscal universe(s) we have, there is:
a) a spiritual realm
b) wherein exists God
c) who created all the physical stuff
The question is whether any of this solves any problems of origin. Well it doesn’t. It just shifts the problem of origins into a different, hypothetical realm.
Moreover, in the process it makes it a bigger problem of origin. Rather than just tackling the existence of anything, it also makes inexplicable the existence of complexity, life and consciousness – because the thing of inexplicable origin is defined to have these properties also.
Science may only have answers to 3 out of 4, but that is still 3 more than faith.
My conclusion therefore is that ‘God’ exists, but it was the Universe that created God, not the other way round! God exists in the minds of people. And minds capable of this sort of thought may perhaps only have been around for about 10,000 years. before that the Universe was godless.
Hi George if God is made up in the minds of men then what is the point to life? I have to disagree with this line of thought.
reason42 – your first point about God being irrational is a valid one. If God was rational it would probably be argued that he wasn’t God because you can rationalise him. It’s a no win situation.
I also don’t accept the viewpoint that to assign an attribute to God is to somehow limit the power or nature of God. Human beings assign these attributes to God to help them to understand God. For example Jesus said “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer sowing seed……….”. This doesn’t mean that God drives a combine harvester – it is a metaphor to help to understand God.
If you do not use these metaphors then you cannot begin to understand God or even begin to talk about God.
Quote:
Now, I assume you are a person of deep faith, and it must be very difficult for you to have these emotional ideas challenged, but if you are to discuss your ideas and beliefs, you have to accept the challenges put before you. If after you have really thought about all of these problems and continue to assert that your idea of God exists, then we must either accept defeat in bringing you to a rational position, or you must give us a convincing argument how this can be so.
I have no problems with people challenging my faith and indeed welcome it. We are not the first people to discuss this and we won’t be the last. It has been going on for the last 2000 years. You also say I have to accept defeat or convince you otherwise. There is a third option which is that we agree to disagree. So far I haven’t read anything that I haven’t heard before or read anything that has changed my mind. I also haven’t read a logical alternate viewpoint that explains the origin of life on earth. I still stand behind my original point:
God is infinate and because he is infinate he doesn’t need to have been created. He created the universe at the beginning of time and time will eventually come to an end. God therefore will always ‘be’.
This is a perfectly logical coherent view point – however you may disagree with it. You also mentioned in the original post:
Some would argue that God created the Big Bang. Therefore God is the first cause. However, this is a contradiction because if everything has a first cause, then God cannot be the ultimate creator.
It isn’t a contradiction because if you accept that God is infinate then he doesn’t need a first cause.
A valid question then would be not “What created the Big Bang” or “Does God exist” but “What is God”?
Is God the universe? Is God the event that created the universe? Is God a figment of human imagination?
I fear that it is the latter. Life is a statistical certainty. It is not miraculous. It has no purpose. Just as there will be stars and planets and moons there will be organisms living upon them. I suspect that God is nothing more than a label given to an event we cannot (yet!) explain.
Give up all hope in there being an afterlife (save that your biological material will be re-used) and give up all hope of salvation. Your actions are neither good nor bad (for no such distinction really exists beyond what is socially acceptable). There is no judgement day, there will be no rapture.
We are nothing more than the dust of dead stars – accept it and be happy! Everything can be, and will be, explained without the need for fiction.
Hi guys and gals,
hope you don’t mind me butting in on your little tete-a-tete here.
Just so you know exactly where I’m coming from, but not in any way looking to top trump anyone, I first got a degree in Astrophysics, then got called into full time Christian ministry and so have done another degree in theology now. So I guess I have a foot in both camps.
there’s loads of arguments on all this which either side can very diligently and sensibly argue from their side of the fence. The one thing I would ask you guys who are holding onto a ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ view of all this to comment on is the following:
As a scientist I learned how to do experiments, how to create hypotheses and how to test them. One of the big things we learned was to understand the presuppositions, to understand the limits of our experiments, to understand the nature of the things we were studying and the built in limitations. When you understand and honour these things then the science becomes a great deal more productive. Knowing the inherent errors in a system you are studying allows you to filter out the mess and find the fact.
Anyway, my point is this. To talk about the beginning of the universe in a ‘rational – there is no God’ sort of way is to acutally do away with all good scientific method and veer headlong into the way of blind faith which you accuse us Christians of holding. I find it really ironic.
You know, by definition, absolutely nothing of the nature of the void before the big bang. I loved the comment about one day the whole being proven to be a continuing cycle. Wow! what faith you have! there is no logical way it can ever be proven. Science knows that, and currently you are placing a huge hope in something for which there is no experimental evidence – just some hypotheses waiting in vain to be tested by an experiment which can never be done.
To say the universe has always existed is also totally against any type of rational science or rational thinking that I know of. all we can do as scientists is to look at what we know to be the case and extrapolate into new areas we dont know about yet. Inference, conjecture, extrapolation. great tools of science – but all needing ratification by experiment to have any worth.
We see no evidence anywhere of anything existing forever. It isnt in the nature of anything within our known universe. Everything is created and destroyed – even energy. So why do so many base their hope on something for which we see no precedent – an eternally existing universe. An orange behaves itself and always exists within the limits of its nature, eg, it never suddenly becomes an apple. You can’t drive an orange, but you can eat it – that’s its nature. Likewise with our physical universe, it is not in its nature to be eternally existent. Nothing in this universe is eternally existent, it follows the behaviour of being created and destoyed.
why do you think it is ok to say it has existed forever when you have no empirical evidence that anything can behave this way. To say it exists forever is to say it behaves in desregard to its nature. It is contradictory.
for God though, to exist eternally is well within his nature. It is a consistent theory to postulate a God with properties of being outside time, eternally existent, omnipotent, etc etc. It is inconsistent to say our universe has existed forever. I value the consistent theory over the inconsistent and irrational one.
Also, when you think about any big bang model you also get into very hot water. The void of nothingness before the universe came into being – what evidence do you have that physical laws we understand today existed within this void?
I’ll help you out a bit there – none! By definition of what our universe is – we can not know anything beyond its limits. We cant know what was in the void, but I would say again, that it seems very inconsistent to postulate the existence of physical laws existing within this void which acted and caused the univese to come into being by a big bang (whether that was a quantum fluctuation, string mutations, or whatever it was). there is no way of ever knowing what was in the void. We can only know what is within our universe.
Again, I’d say you guys who hold out the banner of rationalism are being irrational by your own rules.
I don’t believe it is possible to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God in these discussions. But it would be good for both sides to know the limitations of their arguments. Then perhaps you might listen a little more to the empirical evidence we Christians also have of the true and living Jesus that we have a real relationship with through prayer, worship, miracles happening in our lives, and just the tacit knowledge of God with us every day, as opposed to the emptiness we all felt before we became Christians.
Wowser MO you have a lot of faith in nothing. I wish I could be so confident in mankind to eventually understand everything. Your explaination however still doesn’t address the issue of how we came into being. If you ask a mathematician for the stats on life just being one big chance you would get a big number thrown at you. I reckon I would have more chance winning the lottery – 10 times in my lifetime – in consecutive weeks. Science will never be able to answer this question because it would require the ability to step into infinity to conduct its experiment. This will never happen.
What happens if at the end of it all I am wrong and you are right? I die get eaten by worms – but I know I will have led a good life. Trying to live life by the Bible doing the right thing, trying to help my fellow man and doing my bit to contribute to society.
If however I am right and you are wrong you face an eternity in a place where there is not God.
Statistically I am in a no lose situation.
Joe, Evan,
With respect, I’d say your position of doing the right thing by the Bible is a selfish position to hold. You may think you are doing the right thing, but you are only doing the right thing asserted by the preachers and theologians of your “bookâ€. You live by the rules and you hold the position for what really is just to serve your own self interest. You see, you are only doing this to secure your place in a supposed heaven or afterlife.
I have lots of friends and family who are either atheists or agnostics, and when they do ‘good’ or the ‘right’ thing, they do it for humanity first, and not a supposed God or a nice place in an alleged afterlife. I have a lot more respect for those who are decent enough to do good for fellow man first and no other entity. So, I object to your statement flat out, because the only reason you do ‘good’ and ‘right’ is actually a result of fear in what your destiny might become.
If I saw that you were in trouble, no matter how much I disagreed with you, I would do my best to help you out. I would do this, Joe and Evan, for you, and not for a God. I would do it, because you needed the help and I am willing to give it, whenever I can. I didn’t learn this from a Bible or from a religious teacher; I do this because I have respect for humanity.
Not only this, but there is another problem for the whole notion of God and the supposed teachings of Jesus. That is, to be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven you must accept Jesus as the Lord. How pathetic that is, that a supposed all loving and benevolent God wants you to submit all your doubt and accept him because he said so. Everyone else, who refuses to accept him, will be banished for good. I’d rather stand tall in Hell then cower to this supposed all loving God.
What has been done here, by the theologians and writers of the past, is to create a hook to commit you into this position, because if you don’t accept it, you are to be damned. It’s a very clever trick, but deceitful and dishonest. I can understand why the whole system was invented, and that was to scare gullible people like you guys into being ‘good’ people.
I do accept that nobody can know the existence of God to be true or false, just like you cannot know there to be a teapot circling around the Sun. We are all agnostic about the “idea†and all you and your fellow believers have is just faith and hope. To hold this position of faith requires some irrational beliefs, and your theologians will go to the utmost to deal with the problems created by such a notion, such as the problem of evil and so on.
Now, don’t forget, that this discussion started on the subject: ‘What caused the Big Bang?’. I wrote in my original article that the concept of God will not do when we apply the first cause argument. I do not know what caused the Big Bang and I’m happy to accept that as it is, like most other atheists and agnostics. However, your attempt to solve the first cause argument with the notion of God has failed because there has not been a convincing argument yet that satisfies the problems created by your assertion. That is, to say God caused the Big Bang, you must follow the rules of the argument and say what created God and so on.
In the future articles that I will write, amongst other things, I will revisit the concept of God and the problems of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. Until then, I’m happy to keep this debate open for everyone to have their say, but do remember the original point of the article… Where did it all start? An answer, I’d say, we do not yet know, or even possibly, we will never know.
Adam
Joe and Evan, nice to speak to you both. You’re both quite right, we’re all in the same hole, looking up, trying to find the answer to the ultimate question; the difference between us is that you, mistakenly, believe you have found it.
I’ve made some big assumptions but they are rational assumptions. I’m not basing my assumptions on a dusty work of fiction that was written two millenia ago by some guys who were unaware that the Earth goes around the Sun. To be fair to these guys though, their writings are proof that they were still thinking; the unfortunate effect of their writing has been stop a good many others from doing the same.
The question of life is a big issue and I have absolutely no proof. I have no doubt that life will be found elsewhere, within my lifetime, and when it is found you guys have some more excuses to make.
Apologies for slipping a little off topic, could you both answer me a couple of basic questions;
1. When God the Almighty was talking to his numerous prophets, why didn’t he think to enlighten them about their position in the great scheme of things? You know, basic stuff about the Earth being round and not flat and so on. It would have saved a fair bit of suffering at the hands of the church (remember that writing and thinking thing?) and he’d have told us something useful. Thou shalt not kill? I think we’d already figured that much out for ourselves.
2. Why did God the Almighty see fit to limit his Earthly interest to a one or two thousand year time period focused in and around the Middle East? I can perhaps accept that he’s a busy man (and when you’ve got a load of orbiting balls to play with it’d make sense to go for the middle) but why did he not choose China for example? They were at least three thousand years ahead of the Middle East at the time all of this was going on.
I don’t want to go off on too much of a tangent, like Adam said lets keep the discussion focussed on the original question and we can talk about other issues raised at a later date. However since you run the site and raised some serious points I will give you an answer.
My faith is not based on a fear that if I don’t do what God says I am in big trouble or that my life on earth is about getting enough browny points to get into heaven. The bible is clear that a place in heaven cannot be earned by good works. Jesus talked about “life to the full” and that very much relates to this life. Christianity teaches that respect for others, grace, love, mercy, kindness, humility and a whole bunch of other stuff will benefit mankind. When Jesus was asked to sum up his teaching he said “love God & love your fellow man”. What sets Christianity apart from other religions is that it is not a religion at all. Christianity is a relational faith as Jesus said it focuses on our relationship with God and our relationship with each other.
I have a relationship with my wife and my son, I love my wife very much that is why I am faithful to her. It is also the reason why I try to do the right thing by her and the same applies to my son – it’s the relationship that is the motivating factor. Not a fear that if I sleep with another woman she will leave me and I’ll be all alone.
I know some Christians who have sold everything and have committed their whole lives to working in places like India, Haiti, Africa and South America. Living in shacks and mud huts to try and help people. Doctors who have given up careers to work with Aids victims in Africa. They do it because as their relationship with God grows so they gain a better understanding of mankind. I don’t think that they are being selfish by their actions.
What I also know is that my faith has changed my life – I was a drug taking, drunken, theiving, violent idiot (where as now I am just an idiot!!). Most of the people I grew up with are in prison and I would probably be there now if it wasn’t for my faith. It was a group ‘selfish’ people who decided to help me out and invest some time in me. Which school refused to do and my own Dad couldn’t be bothered to do. Most of the time they didn’t even mention God or brain wash me – like many people though I was searching for answers and God seemed to answer the questions.
Lets return to the original question of the first cause and where did it all start?
MO I am not ignoring your questions and here is a very brief response. I’ll let Adam start a new topic if he thinks it warrants one.
Firstly the Bible isn’t a science book – it doesn’t even mention gravity never mind about the world being round. The questions the bible tries to answer is why things happen? Science explains how things happen?
With regards the Middle East it was the centre of the known earth at that time. It was the most populated, most developed, it was the commercial centre and it was the most key area for the Roman Empire. If the Romans thought it was good enough then why not God? or maybe he’s into his crude oil? There are tonnes of other reasons but lets keep it ‘on topic’ – Big Bang and all that jazz.
According to Joe Anon’s view the Universe (everything that exists) has a material part and a spiritual part both of which ‘exist’ but in different ways, the physical universe (including space-time) existing in some sense ‘within’ the spiritual universe, which he describes as ‘infinite’ in some mystical sense.
This is all very well, but the question is, how does Joe know that all this is true. To me it reads like many another science-fiction fantasy. Very little of this is actually in the Bible anyway, it is more like the writings or ravings of the mystics. I wonder if Joe has read more widely, say in the Hindu or Buddhist literature, where even more fantastic conceptions can be found.
The teachings of Jesus as regards loving your neighbour are not really the Christian part of his message, this is just pure humanism. In fact according to the Bible stories about Jesus he told his disciples to forsake their families, and do nasty things to those who wouldn’t believe in him and his God.
For those of us who don’t have the mysterious ‘faith’ which somehow gives people knowledge despite lack of evidence, it all looks rather like wish-fulfilment or self-delusion, or wild-eyed fantasy.
Hi George
I have to ask if you have ever read the bible? Here are some quotes directly from 1 Corinthians 15:
“But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they have?” All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body”.
Paul is writing to the church in Corinth and explaining about the Resurrection Body. As you can see it clearly distinguishes between the natural and the spiritual.
Ephesians 6:
A final word: Be strong with the Lord’s mighty power. Put on all of God’s armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies and tricks of the Devil. For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.
Again another reference between the spirtual, sometimes called the heavenly realms and the flesh and blood or natural world.
Jesus was totally into humanism – this is from John 8. A woman was caught in the act of commiting adultery and they wanted to stone her – here was his respone:
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
I am not really a person who would just make up stuff out of the Bible for the sake of it. I base what I believe in on what it says in the Bible, whether what is in the Bible is true or not is a seperate discussion.
“Put on all of God’s armor so that you will be able to stand firm against all strategies and tricks of the Devil. For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.”
This is realy weird stuff you’re prepared to believe Joe! Actually this sounds more like the Manichean or Cathar heresy than modern Christianity.
I just looked up that quote in Ephesians 6, and the wording in my copy of the bible (King James version) is quite different from Joe’s. It reads: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” This translation gives it a completely different meaning. Nothing to do with evil spirits in an unseen world, but wicked men in power in this world.
Hi George – the quote I gave was from the Living Translation, it was the one that was closet to me on my book shelf. The quote from 1 Corinthians 15 is from the New International Version. 99% of Christians use the NIV version of the Bible. Mainly because it doesn’t contain old english which is very hard to read – it’s also one of the most accurate translations.
Ephesians 6 in the NIV version reads:- For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
I also looked into the Greek phrase for you (no charge for the theology lesson) it’s en tois epouraniois, the literal translation of this phrase is – in heavenly places. The heavenlies is used throughout the Bible to refer to a heavenly or spiritual realm.
You say it is weird however there are people who swear blind that they have seen a ghost. Do ghosts exist? Is it in a persons mind or is it a possible there is a realm that people sometimes catch a glimpse of which is spiritual or non physcial? What about the devil where does he live? As a non physical entity I would say the spirtual realm. What about the soul? Where does this go when the flesh dies – the spiritual realm! Where is heaven? – the spiritual or heavenly realm. Where does God ‘live’ – the spiritual realm.
This is way off topic and although I am more than willing to discuss this the topic is about the Big Bang.
Hey Joe, don’t worry. You keep posting and we’ll keep giving you something to think about 🙂
I’ve already answered the ‘What caused the Big Bang?’ question. It’s easy – we don’t know yet, or we may never know!
Now, if someone does know what caused the Big Bang, then say so with evidence that we – the sceptics – can accept.
Adam
ps. I reserve the right to post on comment 42!
Joe Anon wrote: “if God is made up in the minds of men then what is the point to life? I have to disagree with this line of thought.”
I find it rather sad that Joe can’t find any point in living without his reliance on his inexplicable faith in the bible(s). Perhaps purpose of life could be the subject of the next Philosophy debate here, since it is rather off the topic of the origin of the universe.
I looked up the ‘New Living Bible’ and it seems it is a recent translation c.1996 made by the Southern Baptist colleges in the US, so presumably they have chosen wording that fits in with their notions of the ‘Rapture’.
The truth is that there is no one agreed original version of the Bible texts, even the choice of which books should be included is disputed, and the meanings of the texts are inherently ambiguous and in many cases the original intention can only be guessed at.
If there was nothing before God how can there be anything now. If there is nothing then it can’t be followed by something.
What ever answers we discover will just give rise to even more questions. Why worry?
God has our destinies mapped out?! I would like it if he could spend more time worrying about someone who derseves his attention more than I.
What does he do on a Sunday? Golf? Church?
Maybe this life is a pennance from not believing in God in my previous life.
Let’s imagine I have just discovered God. Which holy book/religion should I follow?Each believer tells me they are right. Perhaps the Egyptians were correct in their beliefs. I hope not, ‘cos when they are resurrected from the after life we are all fkd when they realise we have robbed all their jewelry and ornamants.
Does one not think, considering the grand scale of things, that our Big Bang was just a Minor Collision really?
I believe in a creator.Where did a huge explosion came from and how did it grows.I think we can’t get away from the big bang theory. I believe that there is something holy outside time.We will have all our answers when we have a time machine. It will be arriving in the next generation. The only proof for the creator is from the holy book because the prophecies in the holy book is coming into existence. So the creator will reveal himself shortly.
Neo123
Why do you believe in a creator?
Why do you think there is ‘something holy outside time’?
Does the ‘holy book’ give any proof of a creator? Is it not simply a circular justification?
Give good reasons for the above and you may convince a lot of sceptics. Until then, I strongly doubt your beliefs have any bearing on what is true.
Adam
There will be discussions on this and thousands of other topics until the end of time. There is an absolute truth, regardless of how eloquent we speak or how smart we think we are. There is one truth and one alone. In math we all know 4+4 = 8. Someone can say well I think 4+4=9. Now thats super and he can think that all he wants but it wont change the fact that 4+4=8.
18 The message of the cross seems foolish to those who are lost and dying. But it is God’s power to us who are being saved. 19 It is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of those who are wise.
I will do away with the cleverness of those who think they are so smart.” —(Isaiah 29:14)
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the educated person? Where are the great thinkers of this world? Hasn’t God made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 God wisely planned that the world would not know him through its own wisdom. It pleased God to use the foolish things we preach to save those who believe.
22 Jews require miraculous signs. Greeks look for wisdom. 23 But we preach about Christ and his death on the cross. That is very hard for Jews to accept. And everyone else thinks it’s foolish.
24 But there are those God has chosen, both Jews and others. To them Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom. 25 The foolish things of God are wiser than human wisdom. The weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
It is also written that Christ came to save those who were lost. Those who ‘think’ they have it altogether in this world will not be seeking a savior. I pray that we all humble ourselves before an all powerful, perfect God..who will return soon to take his children home.
Dale
Dale
The quotes are from Corinthians 1:x, where x is your passage number. I’m not sure what edition of the Bible this is from, but it seems close to King James and the New International.
Anywho, what I think you are saying here is that wisdom, or the seeking of ‘wisdom’, is a bad thing and we should submit to the power of God and his infinite wisdom.
Surely man seeking his own wisdom is a good thing. It says so in Proverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”
Either Wisdom is good, or Wisdom is bad. Which is it? Or, I suspect, there is the ‘correct’ type of Wisdom, and there is the ‘incorrect’ type of Wisdom.
The above is just one example of inconsistentcy from the Bible. Consistency is vital when trying to work out what is true and what is false.
Adam
Hi Adam,
The Bible is consistent. I take the Bible for 100% accurate and perfect because I believe it to be the inspired Word of God. Take in mind that again to measure the Word and say it is inconsistent is measuring it with man’s mind. It sounds like your trying to approach it from a logical stand and not from a believer’s stance. God speaks thru his word and I have no doubt man that doesn’t want to hear the truth…won’t hear it in his heart. There will come a day though…”that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”Phillipians 2:11
You have to open your heart and open your mind to what God is saying and you will hear it…..
If you are truly searching and seeking you will find. “Ask and it will be given unto you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened unto you”Matthew 7:7
I pray that you will honestly search your heart, and earnestly ask the Lord to show you that He is real. Just look all around you…..the evidence of His existence and His love is all around you.
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”1 John 1:9
Later,
Dale
Dale,
Are you serious? You think the Bible is consistent? Please, define what you mean by consistent. Do you mean:
a) The Bible is internally consistent.
b) The Bible is externally consistent.
c) The Bible is both a and b above.
d) Something else (and explain what this is).
I’m seriously interested in what reasons you can give to justify your claim that the Bible is consistent. I completely disagree for reasons that I’ll put forward in a new article very shortly.
Adam
Heh there Adam,
You know what..all I can share with you is what Christ has done in my life. He has given me reason to live. He is my Savior and He’s yours too. He died on the cross for our sins and He is coming again one day for all those who believe in Him. I pray that you can find Him as I did.
For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not parish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.
Dale
I forgot to add one thing…
I’m not sure if you read my input from April 4th about not trying to approach this from a logical stance..but rather listen to your heart. The main ingredient in this is FAITH.
You exercise faith everyday in almost all situations….just think about it. Trusting in an all powerful God who created the world and who sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins isnt such a stretch when you consider the alternative…..BANG!!! and then there was order….it just doesnt add up…..Look around you, search your heart, pray earnestly that God would show you the way……..
I will pray too.
Dale
I don’t know why you are all arguing over this! I be no human being will ever find out whether God exists or what started the big bang unless someone remembers a past life! I believe someone may have started a rumour about God. We don’t know whether God is a man, woman, animal or plant, really.
The Big Bang could be comets colliding but apparently there was nothing there before the Big Bang.
Hi
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night
Maybe u guys should be asking wot time is b4 thinking wot was there b4 it. time is space and vice versa, its space-time, wot was before space-time? who’s not to say that we as earth lifeforms need time, could time be man made? we “feel” time passing, but do we? perhaps just our bodies decaying, time to me is a measure of something moving, if nothing moved would we feel time? (would we exist). What was before time existed? probably loads, just maybe not wot we perceive as time, us humans stamped time as a duration until we realized it is married to space, then called it spacetime. What I think im trying to say is, time was probably not important before it itself existed.
hi,
I skipped to the end after that guy made up that word, this is just an idea from a 13 y.o. guy but just like you said if nothing moved would we feel it so IF we lived before time (hich we didn’t) we couldn’t feel it and IF nothing moved how was something created like God. I was watcing this show on S.B.S. they were trying to make a big bang with this big machine. but it involves movement so if there’s no movement and time, how was there a time to make the big bang?