The Big Bang is evidence for the existence of the supernatural

[rybak303]

I have often heard creationists say that everything in existence must have been caused by something else thus leading to a chain of causes all the way to God Himself. To which atheists respond, “Then what caused God to be in existence?” But this passage from a prominent Christian theologian refutes this common atheist counter to creationism.”

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.”

Furthermore. . . . .

Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature. Within Nature everything is in relation to everything else, everything is interdependent, nothing is independent of the system as a whole, nothing can be truly added or taken away. Therefore within Nature things must exist as spontaneously regenerating patterns and designs, including life. Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole. Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence. Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Furthermore. . . . .

A few pesky details:

1) No one can honestly say what happens prior to the big bang, ergo there are no conclusions to be drawn off of no knowledge. Thus all of your conclusions based on anything prior to a certain point in the big bang is based on absolutely nothing.

2) The only thing anyone really knows about time with empirical evidence to back it up about time are the anedotes of what the theory of relativity has to say about it. Other than that, there are some baseless theories about the nature of time, but the nature of time is otherwise completely unknown. Ergo, all of your conclusions based on when time begins or ends is based on nothing.

3) Our universe in the sense as we understand it does begin at a few fleeting moments during the time it expanded wildly before it expanded during an inflationary period in which it exploded at FTL speeds. The universe as we understand it will end, but the matter in which it will end is entirely up for debate. However, the nature of this universe prior to the earliest understandable point in time and after one of a variety of possible endings to the unverse says nothing above or below those points and any conclusions based on those things are invalid.

4) Humans are not seporate or distinct from nature in any provable fashion. We are a part of nature regardless of how many atom bombs we drop or whatever new toy we make or artificial organs we put in ourselves.

5) Free will, such that it is, also does not make us distinct from nature.

6) Your conclusion has nothing to do with anything. Supernaturalism is not provable by any science and has not been shown to exist at all.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Since the Big Bang definitely demonstrates the beginning of all time for Nature, that is (the universe, the closed box/system of everything). And being that time began because of a definite beginning (The Big Bang) therefore infinity, that without beginning or end, cannot exist within Nature itself but rather must exist beyond Nature. Within Nature everything is in relation to everything else, everything is interdependent, nothing is independent of the system as a whole, nothing can be truly added or taken away. Therefore within Nature things must exist as spontaneously regenerating patterns and designs, including life. Nothing save that which is outside Nature can operate independently of the system as a whole. Nothing except for mankind with his freewill which enables him to act independently of the system as a whole. Freewill cannot emerge from this system because it is independence in a system of total interdependence. Therefore, freewill, like the causation of time and Nature, is beyond time and Nature, it is not Natural but supernatural. Since mankind has freewill which is supernatural, he is therefore at least partly supernatural. Mankind is therefore both Natural and supernatural, the body and the spirit.

As TDOA said, we have no idea whether causality applies outside our universe. In fact, if time did start at the Big Bang, then it probably doesn't apply outside our univers, as causality generally implies temporal priority, and there can be no temporal priority without time. The Big Bang is not an event, as it has no beginning, because there was no time before it. Therefore, it needed no cause. Your argument is self-refuting.

With regards to free will, we could always deny its existence (always a possibility), or we could subscribe to compatibilism. It's not clear how invoking a spirit solves the issue anyway. Is the spirit not influenced by external factors? If not, does it act randomly and sporadically? Is it influenced by our desires? If not, why do we have desires?

[NoGodaloud ?]

Furthermore. . . . .

A few pesky details:

1) No one can honestly say what happens prior to the big bang, ergo there are no conclusions to be drawn off of no knowledge. Thus all of your conclusions based on anything prior to a certain point after the big bang is based on absolutely nothing.

thats not true. The argument stands, based on the fact, that most probably our universe had a beginning, and must therefore have a cause.

3) Our universe in the sense as we understand it does begin at a few fleeting moments during the time it expanded wildly before it expanded during an inflationary period in which it exploded at FTL speeds.

that means, you don't oppose nr.2 of the kalaam argument : that our universe most probably had a beginning.

4) Humans are not seporate or distinct from nature in any provable fashion. We are a part of nature regardless of how many atom bombs we drop or whatever new toy we make or artificial organs we put in ourselves.

our physical body is not distinct. But our spirit and soul, are distinct.

6) Your conclusion has nothing to do with anything. Supernaturalism is not provable by any science and has not been shown to exist at all.

In fact, its not provable. Thats why the right question should be : how can we best explain our existence ?

what is your belief in this regard ? If not God, you have two choices.

A eternal universe, never created
or a finite universe, which had no cause, since you exclude God.

So you stick to the idea, the universe could have caused itself ? sounds reasonable ?

---

As TDOA said, we have no idea whether causality applies outside our universe.

excuse me ? that means, you believe things can pop up out of absolutely nothing ( which is the absence of any thing ? )

The Big Bang is not an event, as it has no beginning, because there was no time before it.

If it was not a event, it would have not happened. Since it happened, time was created with the Big Bang.
from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

[Welsh cake]

But this passage from a prominent Christian theologian refutes this common atheist counter to creationism.”

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.”

Yeah we've heard that circular bullshit only a million times before. I'd personally love it if apologists were more original by explaining to me why doesn't an omnipresent god respect people's privacy in the bathroom?

Basically, it's safe to say, if god doesn't need a first-cause, then neither does the universe require a first-cause.

[Minimalist]

prominent Christian theologian

Ted Haggard used to be a prominent xtian theologian, too.


They are a dime a dozen.

[NoGodaloud ?]

Basically, it's safe to say, if god doesn't need a first-cause, then neither does the universe require a first-cause.

Nope, its not. Since the universe most probably had a absolute beginning, it must have had a cause. God however dwells in a timeless eternal dimension, without beginning, and without a end, and therefore does not need a cause.

[Minimalist]

Lunacy.

[Entropist]

“For instance, it is a mistake to view everything as needing a cause, for in this case there would be an infinity of causes and even God would need a cause. Only limited, changing, contingent things need causes. Once one arrives at an unlimited, unchanging, necessary being, there is no longer any need for a cause. The finite must be caused, but the infinite being would be uncaused.”

And this particular god is a "necessary being" merely because some theologians have defined this unseen entity as such. How convenient.

[The Omnissiunt One]

excuse me ? that means, you believe things can pop up out of absolutely nothing ( which is the absence of any thing ? )

It could be. After all, true nothing would have no physical laws. Therefore, there would be no constraint on something's coming from noting, as any constraint would constitute a physical law.

If it was not a event, it would have not happened. Since it happened, time was created with the Big Bang.

No, because an event is something that happens within a temporal context. Only something that happens within a temporal context has a cause. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however, otherwise God would not exist, as he is not an event.

from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

Pure assertion. Yes, that's the case in our experience (though some interpretations of quantum mechanics put that principle in doubt), but we cannot make that judgement of things outside the universe.