Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Sunday, February 27, 2011

“Perhaps the best argument that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory.”
Astrophysicist C. J. Isham

For example: “The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”
Quentin Smith

That’s the most reasonable belief that an atheist scientist can come up with?

To have atheist scientists say things like, “The Big Bang didn’t have a cause,” or “The Big Bang didn’t need a cause,” would be laughable if they weren’t so desperate and pathetic. Those kinds of comments certainly aren’t coming from science. They’re coming from a faith based position with no evidence to support it, a faith based position that is being promoted in a final gasp of life as science itself is proving the existence of Creator God.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

7 comments:

  1. HugoFebruary 27, 2011 at 10:10 PM

    Two quick questions:

    1) What started to exist first, matter or energy?

    2) Do you base your beliefs on quotes by people who already believe the same conclusions as you; or do you actually learn things from scientific observations sometimes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ThesaurosFebruary 28, 2011 at 5:47 AM

    1) What's the difference
    2) Yes

    ReplyDelete
  3. HugoFebruary 28, 2011 at 12:04 PM

    1) Good answer, that is exactly what I am wondering as well. Since we cannot differenciate the two, one always come from the other, how can we know for sure that one of the two, or the two at the same time, got created, from nothing?

    In other words, let me get to the point, why restrict God to creating this one universe in that way? Why couldn't He have created a multitude of universes with different sets of physical properties? Why couldn't all of the matter, or energy, or part of both, come from another universe? Perhaps our universe even share some with that other universe?

    You seem to forget that only 1,000 years ago, people believed sincerely that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was designed just for us in a perfect way. I just feel like you are doing the exact same reasoning error for our current universe. Why restrict God's power by limiting His Creation to that 1 Universe?

    2) It was not a single yes/no question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ThesaurosFebruary 28, 2011 at 7:29 PM

    God may have created an infinite number of universes with only one being a life supporting universe or all of them being life supporting universes. The point is, everything came from nothing by a Cause whose characteristics, while not taken from the Bible, would most likely share the characteristics of the Creator God described in the Bible.

    You didn’t ask it as a yes or no question but the answer is yes for both. I base my beliefs on people who not only share what I believe (because we were taught by the same Being) and who know much more than I do, but also from science.

    Have you ever read my post, “Why I’m not an atheist,”? Probably 7/8's of that post is documenting scientific evidence directing an open minded explorer to a Creator and Personal God and away from the absurd, illogical and incoherent faith system of atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HugoMarch 1, 2011 at 12:10 PM

    God may have created an infinite number of universes with only one being a life supporting universe or all of them being life supporting universes.

    In other words, we agree that we don't know exactly where the universe we inhabit comes from. It could come from a previous universe, be part of a larger system of universes, wrap on itself, or many other possible options.

    The point is, everything came from nothing

    I don’t understand how, when accepting that everything was created by God, you can say that everything came from nothing. Don't you see your own contradiction?

    by a Cause whose characteristics, while not taken from the Bible, would most likely share the characteristics of the Creator God described in the Bible.

    That's where your logic fails. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Note that I am in no way saying that your conclusion is false, just that your argument is invalid. I think it's self-evident because of what was just mentioned above, but I don't understand why you don't see it yourself...

    You didn’t ask it as a yes or no question but the answer is yes for both. I base my beliefs on people who not only share what I believe (because we were taught by the same Being) and who know much more than I do, but also from science.

    Your first 'yes' is silly. There is nothing to learn from quotes when it comes to scientific facts. Quotes can, at best, show opinions. This simple question tells a lot about you without you realizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. HugoMarch 1, 2011 at 12:17 PM

    Have you ever read my post, ... documenting scientific evidence directing an open minded explorer to a Creator and Personal God and away from the absurd, illogical and incoherent faith system of atheism.

    Who cares about atheism?

    ReplyDelete
  7. HugoMarch 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM

    Even if I mentioned God, the questions I am asking you here are not even directly related to religion. I am actually trying to understand why you bring so much theological conclusions when looking at something devoid of religious meaning, i.e when talking about the Big Bang. In other words, I am fascinated by the fact that you think theses quotes you posted carry any significant value.

    They go beyond the scope of what we know, in order to support a pre-accepted conclusion. And so does your comment of 'science itself is proving the existence of Creator God'.

    Both quotes, and your reasoning, are fallacious and not supported by the facts supposedly used. Actually, the second quote does not even point to any facts; it's just an opinion.

    Again, however, let me insist: the conclusions (and yours) are not proven wrong (or right), they simply do not follow from the premises, or completely lack any supporting premises.

    And no, I disagree, nothing you ever wrote on this blog, or your previous one, showed a logical pathway between science and Creator God. Doing so would actually reduce Creator God's complexity to the level of the human brain. What an insult...

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)