Of Science and God
Scientific evidence, in my opinion, corroborates rather than undermines the existence of God. In the same way that spontaneous evolution makes zero sense, I believe there is a process through which God created the universe. The existence of the Big Bang should be a headache, not for the believers in God, but for non-believers. Where did the finely tuned laws come from ? The matter?
Secondly, it should be noted that creation of the universe and creation of man are two separate events, with the big bang facilitating (provided matter), rather than disproving the possibility of creation.
posted by jm at 3:57 PM
9 Comments:
I guess spontaneous evolution makes zero sense in the same way the spontaneous appearance (or eternal pre-existence) of an all knowing, all-powerful God makes no sense. Where did God come from?
The Big Bang theory simply explains the generation of the universe from what is known as a singularity. It is not the only theory of how the Universe came into being.
Finally, I take issue with the idea that the laws that govern the physical world are finely tuned. Just look at the weird world of quantum particles.
This is boggy ground whose surface must yield when trodden.
I am neither about the spontaneous appearance of God (may be may be not)nor his pre-existence.
My argument is this:
God, as I believe him, created us (let's not worry about how for now)
Before there was, he was, is, and will always be.
But human beings (and pertinently the human brain)necessarily started within the boundaries of space and time [there might be other dimensions in our very universe that we cannot detect - who knows]
Thus:
Whatever could have happened priorly - we cannot understand - in fact it is moot to even IMAGINE - because even our imagination is likewise confined post big-bang !
"I am neither about the spontaneous appearance of God (may be may be not)nor his pre-existence."
"Before there was, he was, is, and will always be."
These are two statements seem contradictory.
Anyway, if the Big Bang theory carries the burden of explaining the source of the singularity (which it doesn't) then surely creation must carry a corresponding burden of explaining the source of God.
"I am neither about the spontaneous appearance of God (may be may be not)nor his pre-existence."
"Before there was, he was, is, and will always be."
These are two statements seem contradictory.
Anyway, if the Big Bang theory carries the burden of explaining the source of the singularity (which it doesn't) then surely creation must carry a corresponding burden of explaining the source of God.
imagine if you will Point Zero, right before the Big Bang. Nothingness, only gases about to explode. Gases made out of electrons and neutrons and protons. These elements am questioning where they originated.... i understand gathara's argument for proof of God, but am not clear how to explain it other than, when you read scripts like the Quran nd come across topics like Embryology and Quantum Physics explained vividly and this from a book delivered 1,400 years ago where such knowledge was not known, you begin questioning..... Who inspired these?
How does the probabilistic nature of quantum physics disprove say, Keppler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's laws of gravity or Einsten's Theory of Relativity ?
Unless you are saying that given billions and billions of years, out of chance can come the wonder that is our universe?
I stand to be corrected but model after model by eminent physicists keep pointing the other way - given probability.
Gathara: True but you need to address the binding of human imagination post big bang, for I submit it removes the burden of explaining God, who, as its initiator, must be pre.
Relativity and Quantum physics have changed the way many phycists see the world. The fact that time can expand and shrink, virtual particles can apparently generate themselves out of nothing, quantum particles can move from point A to point B without traversing the space in between and posses the property of uncertainty (i.e. you can pinpoint either their position or velocity but not both) shows the chaos and unpredictability that is at the heart of the Universe. Newton's and Keppler's Laws are thus just specific laws (i.e. they apply only in certain specific circumstances) and not general laws (they are not fundamental). Please see here for a dicussion of why the existence of a singularity predicted by Relativity is incompatible with a God-created universe.
The argument that God created the universe in such a way that we cannot even begin to imagine what went prior to the creation doesn't wash and is hopelessly circular. The main objection is that we can (and are forced by the argument to) imagine God who necessarily comes before the big bang. God created the universe. God came before the big bang. Human imagination is limited to post big bang. Therefore humans cannot imagine God. The only way to imagine God existing (and thus creating the universe) is to accept that he created it.
Smartly argued Gathara. Thank you for the insight.
Post a Comment
<< Home