Problems understanding naturalistically the beginning of the universe

[Wryetui]

Now, I want to clarify somethings. Even though I said I want this thread to be religion-free because it would lose its atheism if so, religion still appeared.

It is not true that "I cannot ask this question about my God" or about my religion. The universe is the Creation, and the creation was created ex-nihilo (out of nothing) by God, that is transcendent to it. God Himself is without a beginning and without an end, because beginning and end are adjectives that require contingence. God say that His name is "I AM", showing one of the deepest theological conditions about Himsel; God is existence as existence is. However, we cannot at all think that the matter is eternal since it is clearly not, we have seen it. The word "eternal" belongs to religion, not to naturalistic science.

I believe this is the last barrier for science, after all, it would only be speculation to talk about it, scientifical speculation. Just as I have heard in this forum the phrase "There are literally billions of galaxies", which is a claim based entirely on a scientifical speculation.

1. Where's your evidence?

2. "Scientifical"? Really??

You mean, why do I believe that, right? I believe that because God has told us so through His prophets in the Old Testament and through the saints of the New Covenant until today, what we would call, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

[Mudhammam]

The universe is the Creation, and the creation was created ex-nihilo (out of nothing) by God

Why not just say that matter began to exist from nothing? Why does one need God as a cause when the proposition "God, a timeless being, created matter from nothing at a definite time in the past" is no less obscure than "Matter began to exist following nothingness and without any cause"?

[rexbeccarox]

1. Where's your evidence?

2. "Scientifical"? Really??

You mean, why do I believe that, right? I believe that because God has told us so through His prophets in the Old Testament and through the saints of the New Covenant until today, what we would call, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

No, I mean what evidence do you have that what you stated is true?

[robvalue]

The universe is the Creation, and the creation was created ex-nihilo (out of nothing) by God

Why not just say that matter began to exist from nothing? Why does one need God as a cause when the proposition "God, a timeless being, created matter from nothing at a definite time in the past" is no less obscure than "Matter began to exist following nothingness and without any cause"?

Doesn't sound as satisfying I guess.

[Wryetui]

You mean, why do I believe that, right? I believe that because God has told us so through His prophets in the Old Testament and through the saints of the New Covenant until today, what we would call, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

No, I mean what evidence do you have that what you stated is true?

The universe and, as a consequence, our world. I have seen that the world around us is perfectly designed, everything follows its course and animals are machineries with a complexity that is beyond doubt. It is not possible for me that everything that exists exists by chance, the odds are against this possibility. The possibility that my hands, which are perfectly moving the fingers that with scrupulosity are typing a reply in this forum. If I happen to encounter, by chance, the Mona Lisa on the street my first thought would be that the hands that painted it and the mind that conceived it is not only great, but magnanimous. I do not accept Thoma's theology in its entirety, but, as he would say:

• Some things are caused.
  
• Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
  
• An infinite regress of efficient (simultaneous) causation is impossible.
  
• Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
  
• This cause, everyone calls God.
  

This is called natural revelation. In other words, we live in a world, this world had to be caused (created) by something, this something is God. I do not accept any of the other accounts of scientific speculation to whether the life emerged from a primordial soup or from the outer space or whatever else because this is just speculation, and these speculations appear just because there cannot be accepted that this a being exists because there would be consequences for it, and there is a strong commitment to materialism at this moment by a large part of the scientific community, as Richard Lewontin a geneticist and self-proclaimed marxist would say: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.".

However, natural revelation is not enough, this can only tell that there is a God, but offers no information about what or who this God is. This is where supernatural revelation. God revealed to the prophets of the Old Testament and not only, God entered into space and time to save us from what our protoparents did and its consequences, so we had God among us. And He established a Church a continued to fill this Church with Himself, with the Holy Spirit and we have thousands of saints that prove that God is real by their life in Him througout history.

[Redbeard The Pink]

He seems to think that the Bible is evidence of itself. Anyone wanna explain that a claim can't prove itself, or are we just letting that one go?

[Mudhammam]

Doesn't sound as satisfying I guess.

I don't get that. It is more parsimonious.

[robvalue]

Yeah, but theists like a good story it seems. It has to have characters, motivations, and meaning. It can't just be "stuff happened"

[ignoramus]

You mean, why do I believe that, right? I believe that because God has told us so through His prophets in the Old Testament and through the saints of the New Covenant until today, what we would call, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Really?


Don't get me wrong. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their own beliefs about any topic.
What perplexes me is the granularity of evidence you require to be satisfied with a scientific explanation, yet are completely content and satisfied with another explanation simply because "God has told us so through His prophets in the Old Testament". Basically, you believe what a bunch of blokes wrote in a fantastic novel and decided never to question it? This is why "we", the NOT indoctrinated people just shake our head at such blatant cognitive dissonance.
I'd imagine it isn't obvious to you? I suppose a lifetime of mental conditioning can make anything seem "normal".

[robvalue]

Oh, the argument from design again, and the cosmological argument.

These are not evidence, these are arguments in lieu of evidence.

What would a non-designed universe look like, and how do you know this?

How much of the universe would you expect to be lethal to us, if it was designed with us in mind?

The universe "had a cause", why? Because you say so? The cosmological argument is nothing but a bunch of assertions. And calling a cause "God" does not imbue it with intelligence or magic powers; or render it immune to your own premises.