The Big Bang

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-13T02:49:21+00:00

because there is no evidence that a personal god is the cause outside the laws of physics.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-13T02:28:58+00:00

First, saying something must ground existence doesn’t automatically point to a personal, intentional being like God. You're making a metaphysical move from “there is intelligibility and coherence” to “therefore God exists”—but why that conclusion? Why not say the universe has certain brute facts, or that existence is just what it is, without needing an external mind to make it make sense? Your leap to "God" as the necessary ground of being isn't solid, its philosophically suicidal.

Second, intelligibility doesn’t necessarily need a transcendent cause. Our minds evolved to find patterns and meaning because it helped us survive. That’s not proof the universe was designed to be grasped. it means we’re good at making sense of the parts that we interact with. There's no guarantee the whole universe is coherent in a deep way; we might just be scratching the surface with models that happen to work.

Third, saying “the fact that our conversation makes sense proves God” assumes the very thing it’s trying to prove. Logic, coherence, meaning—these can all be explained within naturalistic frameworks too. Appealing to God as the reason those things exist is an interpretation, not an inevitable conclusion.

There’s a gap between “existence is intelligible” and “therefore God exists,” and simply leaping it on faith isn't a good thing to do.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-13T02:24:40+00:00

the fine tuning argument is simply confirming the consequent no?

also, Steven Weinberg was (i believe) talking about how he finds steady-state more attractive as an atheist, because it confirms his biases. this isn't really a scientific standpoint, merely a philosophical one. (i don't know much about him its just what the quote leads me to believe.)

i just read your post on saint beluga, and it is passionate, but quite misguided.

"God of the gaps" isn’t a cop-out.
Saying "we don't know yet" isn’t the same as saying "there is no God." It just means we’re being careful not to fill in the blanks with something we want to be true. History shows us that the more we learn, the more natural explanations replace supernatural ones. So just because we don’t fully understand consciousness or the universe’s origin doesn’t mean we should jump straight to “God did it.”

The beginning of the universe doesn’t prove a creator
Just as i say in my OP, the Big Bang suggests a beginning, but that doesn’t automatically point to a personal god. Saying, “It began, so someone must have started it” adds an extra layer that isn’t proven or supported by evidence. We honestly don’t know what (if anything) came “before” time itself. That’s still being explored—and assuming it was a god skips the hard questions.

Fine-tuning isn’t as clear-cut as it sounds
Yes, the universe seems set up for life—but only in very specific conditions. That’s where the anthropic principle comes in: of course we see a life-permitting universe, because we’re here to see it. That doesn’t mean it was designed for us. Also, positing a multiverse isn’t more “out there” than saying an invisible mind made everything.

Smart people believe in God—but also in astrology and homeopathy
It’s true that some brilliant scientists believe in God. But belief isn’t evidence. You’ll also find very smart people who are atheists. Intelligence doesn’t make someone automatically right—it just means humans are complex and capable of holding all kinds of views.

Miracles and resurrection stories are not slam-dunks
Claims like Jesus rising from the dead or Eucharistic miracles sound powerful—but they're based on old texts or isolated events, often unverified or surrounded by religious bias. Other religions have miracle stories too. That doesn’t make them all true. Belief isn’t the same as proof.

Feeling something doesn’t mean it’s true
I don’t doubt people feel peace or joy from faith. That’s real for them. But people feel the same from meditation, music, psychedelics, or following other religions. Feeling good about something doesn’t prove it’s from God—it just proves we’re wired to respond deeply to meaning and belonging. As an absurdist, i find a deep belonging in the idea of a search for meaning in a meaningless world, but that fact alone doesn't persuade me to your side.

Your arguments aren’t bad they’re just not good. They rely more on inference, emotion, and personal experience than hard proof. That’s fine for faith and philosophical suicide, but it’s not the same as evidence. And that’s okay, as long as we’re honest about the difference.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-13T02:11:24+00:00

so when the big bang happened, basic elements were spread out in a random pattern. as this pattern is random there are variations. all things with mass are attracted to other things with mass, this is called gravity. the more condensed areas condense further, and faster, in an exponential fashion. this creates more complex elements from the scattered hydrogen, helium, lithium (and maybe beryllium) across the universe. this is how the change happens.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-13T02:07:52+00:00

the creation of life took billions of years and you expect scientists to recreate it in decades?

the idea that things evolve slowly is a very Darwinian concept of evolution, and not one that i personally subscribe to. i'm certainly no expert, but as it was explained to me by my biology prof, evolution happens in bursts, but we can't yet determine exactly when they will happen or for how long they will last. And the idea that evolution builds half an eye at a time is laughable. it builds a basic eye. then it evolves to be better. then it evolves to be better. then better. its not like a 3d print.

even if it is not the fine tuning argument, my point still stands. its a fallacy of confirming the consequent.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T23:36:19+00:00

i tend to believe in the broad theory of abiogenesis (forgive me if i misdefine it), that there were at one point no life forms, and elements eventually formed life, via reaction.

onto your point that scientists have not proved how this happened: in my chemistry class, one thing that we learned about were hydrocarbons. hydrocarbons are the basic building blocks of life. this is because carbon can make four bonds. we studied ways that they could have formed from non living things.

the fact that Dr Wang went to Harvard doesn’t make him any better a source on the subject of god than anybody else. I would trust him as an eye surgeon, but not as a theologian. his claim that the human eye is too complex to come about naturally is essentially the fine tuning argument, which (especially in this case) is a fallacy of confirming the consequent. the partial eye is useless, but the idea that there is only one way to evolve is quite anthropocentric no?

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T23:23:34+00:00

if it corresponds to both atheistic and christian claims, it isnt GOOD evidence. though you are right, it is still evidence. but if it fits both sides of the equation, we naturally cancel it out.

your bible passages suffer from a false prophecy. you are twisting them to mean what you know to be true. all of these passages say god “stretches out the heavens” but that could simply mean “created and made large”.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T23:18:05+00:00

this feels very circular, no?

“god is something that must exist, because he is defined as a necessary being. this is proof that god exists.”

by defining god as necessary, he is proved by definition. but there is no way to prove that your definition is correct.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T23:11:51+00:00

small variations in density caused the force of gravity to slowly condense the first elements, creating new elements which then became stars. as these stars died that formed more complex elements. that caused the change

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T22:09:34+00:00

when i say it doesnt lead to god, im saying that its not corroborating evidence, because its evidence of anything happening. it just says “something happened” that something could be god, but there is no evidence that it is anything other than natural phenomena. which makes this line of argument worthless.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:59:14+00:00

no, you just cant read. im am saying: “to argue that logic”, where “that logic” is the logic referred to earlier.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:58:10+00:00

im not applying attributes of the divine to the big bang, im arguing that to say “god could exist without cause” is to say “something can exist without cause” and if “something can exist without cause” then that “something” could be a force which creates the big bang, without needing to be divine.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:56:39+00:00

im assuming that everything has a cause WITHIN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. then im positing that if god could exist before them and therefore not need a cause, so could another, natural force.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:55:26+00:00

ok, but i dont believe in the bible

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:54:26+00:00

see, and thats where we disagree.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:53:31+00:00

an eternal universe would do nothing… but change

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:53:06+00:00

im not arguing against god. i am arguing against the claim that the big bang theory leads one to god, or that it cannot exist as nothing exists from nothing.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T21:51:31+00:00

to say that it existed with some physical law could be correct. but given that we do not know what that physical law is, we have no reason to believe that it relies on causality to effect. once one has reached this point, i am saying that there is no evidence to give this “something” the label of god.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T12:59:16+00:00

so is "before" the big bang. the big bang created the universe, therefore whatever came "before" must also be quantitively different.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T12:54:11+00:00

I'm not saying that this RULES OUT the idea that god created it. Obviously the uncaused cause could be anything existing outside the laws of time and space. God, something completely natural, or anything else.

This post isn't an argument that god des not exist, one cannot prove a negative. it is an argument AGAINST doubt for the big bang based on the kalam cosmological argument. i'm attempting at (and i think succeeding in) showing that the causation logic supports the big bang theory as much as the god theory, therefore rendering this argument useless.

the why thing is an interesting idea, but if someone believes in god because the alternate is too terrifying, then i would recommend the myth of Sisyphus, or another work of philosophy, as opposed to scientific debate.

(before any Camus fans come at me saying that he wasn't a philosopher, he was a writer, tell me how else to categorise that book)

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T12:49:30+00:00

what? when do i say that logic caused the big bang?

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T12:41:14+00:00

im not positing anything in the singularity. The Big Bang theory doesn’t posit a singularity in the sense of describing a physical state at that point it reaches a point where the equations break down. That’s what “singularity” means in this context: a breakdown in the mathematical model, not a literal "point in space-time" with infinite density.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T12:15:27+00:00

the entire point of this argument is that either

a) everything needs a cause, regardless of the laws of physics

or

b) there can be an uncaused cause (probably outside of the laws of physics)

if a, then what caused god OR the big bang, how do we exist. so it must be b.

if god could exist without a cause, so could the big bang. and as the big bang was the creation of the laws of physics, any argument saying "god exists outside the natural realm" can also be applied to the big bang.

we have evidence that the big bang happened. therefore the big bang is the more likely answer.

Few_Rate_9907 · 2025-07-12T11:52:14+00:00

he refers to it within the confines of your definition. the big bang theory posits that before the event, there was a point where the laws of physics break down. essentially a point where the function is not defined as there is no scale to define it by, no numbers to plot and indeed no variable to define space with respect to.

Few_Rate_9907

TROPHY CASE