New Apologetics Book, 25 Reasons to be Christian.

[Sheldon]

SaintPeter

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, it was attacked by some Atheists, who disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe, as smacking too much and being reminiscent of Divine Creation; but today, it is the most widely accepted theory in Cosmology.

I would still dispute the notion it was a beginning, since by definition time must exist before something can begin. It is simply a fact that when we encounter paradigm shifting ideas, our language often has to catch up. Though I have seen enough theists and apologists leap on the idea of a beginning, to misrepresent it as an argument for a deity. 
If the big bang theory really represented scientific evidence for a deity, then one would expect elite physicists to universally hold a belief in a deity, and the evidence is that atheism is far higher among elite scientists than among the general population. This never seems to deter many religious apologists from misrepresenting science as evidencing a deity though, while simultaneously and ironically cherry picking scientific facts to reject of course, when those facts refute their religious beliefs in any way.

[The Grand Nudger]

-because contemporary theists have been steeped in the same tea that all of us heathens here have. They want science. They need to have possession of it as a valuable item in their own minds. As validating. A person who genuinely believes in gods and that science is informative is in a perilous spot. Doesn't mean that they'll stop believing, but they will inevitably make compromises and alterations to one or both things in order to make them concordant. A failure to do this adequately (adequately, here, just refers to whatever that would be for them) is a basis for a crisis of faith...while making such arguments disingenuously is the basis for a crisis of credibility.

[Paleophyte]

SaintPeter

The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, it was attacked by some Atheists, who disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe, as smacking too much and being reminiscent of Divine Creation; but today, it is the most widely accepted theory in Cosmology.

I would still dispute the notion it was a beginning, since by definition time must exist before something can begin.

It isn't. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe existed in an extremely energetic, dense state during the earliest moments of its existence that we can currently observe. It tells us what the universe was like in its first few moments some 13.8 billion years ago. It doesn't tell us anything about what, if anything came before that or what caused it. If we attempt to model the beginning of the universe by running physics backwards we get the wrong answers, and worse, relativity and quantum mechanics yield different wrong answers.

So what happened before the Big Bang nobody knows, least of all a religion that had the Sun orbiting the Earth for 1600 years and persecuted anybody who said otherwise.

[Pat Mustard]

Ok. I am tentatively putting just 3 chapters of the foundational case for the existence of God. I hope this is allowed. Now, as people ask/debate about specific topics, since I am the book author, I will elaborate in more detail about them. Hope that's fine. The 3 primary arguments are (1) the Kalam cosmological argument (2) the contingency-necessity argument (3) the fine tuning argument. Other Christian apologists have mentioned these, and I develop them below.

Administrator Notice
It is not.

• Posting an abundance of content you've pre-written for purposes other than forum use (i.e. essays, blog posts, etc.)
  

Boru

All three of those arguments boil down to:
1) Assume we live in a universe where god exists.
2) <Insert holy book here> says god exists.
3) God exist. QED.

You'll need to do better than assertion to convince those who don't already believe as you do.

[Pat Mustard]

And, as for the evidence/reason, I gave it above. One would have to show one of the steps in the Kalam is false. Which is it: "(1) What begins to exist has a cause. (2) But, the Universe began to exist. (3) Thus, there exists a Cause of the Universe that existed outside time and space before the Universe came to being."

The Big Bang Theory provides scientific evidence in support of premise 2. So does the Borde Guth Villenkin theorem, for that theorem says any universe that any universe that has generally been expanding in the past cannot have been of infinite age but began to exist a finite time ago.

That's special pleading: someone had to create the universe because it exists but not god who also supposedly exist. And someone did create god - can you guess who?

Also, the universe didn't start existing at the big bang. Universe existed before the big bang but it was very small, so universe always existed.

It's not even properly formulating Kalam/Aquinas. In both of the formulations they start with a variation of "everything that exists must have a creation". It takes a lot of special pleading to end up with an eternal god through Kalam/Aquinas, when the proper result should be "it's gods all the way back/down".

[A. Secular Human]

There's no such thing as "Overkill"...

'If at first you don't succeed, it's only attempted murder.' - Jesus of Nazareth

Boru

He also said that about two crows.

[Thumpalumpacus]

One reason to not be a Christian: their god collapses under the weight of his own incongruities.

[Nay_Sayer]

One reason to not be a Christian: their god collapses under the weight of his own incongruities.

Thankfully my God can fly and is made of infinite density pasta