Does the Big Bang suggest a creator?

I'm not sure why a creationist would argue against the Big Bang. I've always thought that if the Big Bang suggested anything as regards the concept of God, it tended to hint at a creator more than it hinted at a universe being around forever.For those are the only two choices:(1)Either the universe--in some form--has always existed or (2) it was created by a Being that has existed forever.There are no other choices. If you say that the universe was created by a thing, then we can call that thing the universe in another form, and so you might well as say that the universe has existed forever.If you ask the question, who or what created God, you are asking the wrong question, because God by definition would have had to be eternal. If some non-eternal being created the universe, this just takes us a step back to whatever created him, and we have the same 2 choices facing us.In other words, something or someone had to exist forever. As far as the notion that the universe came from nothing, that it created itself, I find this notion impossible. Nothing can come from nothing.

Where should this go?

maybe faith and belief or coffee house?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I agree with this. Actually, I have heard some theologians making such an argument for a creator.I suspect the reason most YECs reject tbe big bang, is that they don't want to agree to the age of the cosmos that BB suggests. Somebody will probably come up with another option.Some BB proponents might say that the universe has existed forever, but that forever started a finite time ago.

This makes no sense.

”Forever’ implies an infinite amount of time. But as all laws of physics breaks down at the point of the big bang this also means time breaks down at the big bang. In this sense that the arena of time that the universe exists in may indeed be infinite but time itself didn’t exist before the big bang and thus is finite. (There is math, I think, to back this up. But I don’t understand it)

There's only one way, in my view, this makes sense. That is if you define time as "change." So one could say that the time before time was a time without change. So you can't measure time except by change. If there is no change, there is no time. The clocks wouldn't move.Still, something has to start the change.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-04-2005 12:47 AM

quote:

---

(1)Either the universe--in some form--has always existed or (2) it was created by a Being that has existed forever.

---

This is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why any supposed source of this universe would necessarily have to continue to exist after this universe began.Nor is there any reason why any supposed source would have to exist for all time prior to the existence of this universe.Nor is it necessary that any supposed source would have to be considered a "creator" in the sense of a conscious entity intentionally producing the universe. u

This is very true, and the original objections to the Big Bang were principally on the basis of its theistic "implications". As has been pointed out, the Creationist argument originally focused on the age aspect. Nowadays, I hear far more complaints concerning "explosions" and "something from nothing" and how such concepts don't sound very Godly...But a finite universe does not require a creator/progenitor/first cause. The universe did not "begin" at T=0. It is just the earliest point in the universe. Time does not exist outside the universe. There is no "before" the Big Bang for there to be a chronological "first cause". Be careful with statements like "I find this notion impossible". There are far more bizarre concepts than this in our universe, many of which will appear impossible to conventional thought. The universe has little respect for conventional thought.However, I agree than something cannot come from nothing. But this is not required. The universe just IS. T=0 is just one place in the universe, like many other places. It is not where the universe was created. We attach special significance to this point because we have a restricted human understanding of the nature of time. The creation of the universe, if there is such a concept, is what brings reality into being: past, present and future. The questions is "why is there something rather than nothing", not "when and how was the universe created"

quote:

---

but that forever started a finite time ago.

​

This makes no sense.

---

The view of many BB proponents is that time only exists starting from the big bang. If you take "forever" as the same as "from the beginning of time", then "forever started a finite time ago" could make a lot of sense.

True. It might have died when the Big Bang occurred. The universe is God's corpse--interesting idea. I just meant before that.

quote:

---

I find this notion impossible.

---

So now you know how the inquisitors who tried Galileo felt: they found the notion of the earth moving through space to be impossible.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Totally different.

Yes, it always is, isn't it?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt