Monday, January 12, 2009

GotQuestions Contradiction

I was just reading over at my new favorite christian website, and I noticed a funny little discrepancy. In the article Did God use the "big bang" to create the universe? I found this wonderful denial of the Big Bang Theory.
In the Bible, God is eternal and the matter and the universe are not. There are different versions of the Big Bang theory, but in most of them the universe and/or matter is eternal. In Genesis 1, the existence of God is assumed, "In the beginning God..." The true purpose of the Big Bang theory is to deny His existence.
Then in the article Is God imaginary? we find this interesting argument.
These facts being evident, it then becomes quite easy to offer a simple, reasonable, logical proof for God in the following way:

1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

The only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning.
Number five is the one that caught my attention. It is true that science has proven that the universe had a begining. There is a scientific theory that says that the universe is not eternal. Does anyone know what that theory is called? Is it the Big Bang Theory? Yes, it is.

If you deny a scientific theory should you be allowed to use it as proof of the existence of God?


GCT said...

Quite agree.

And, they've got it wrong anyway. Science hasn't proven that the universe is not eternal, it has just shown that this incarnation of matter/energy that we know of as our universe started at time t=0. It's quite different from what the fundies have in mind.

Laurie said...

They're just free entertainment over at that site, Robert. Since you put me onto them I've had a lot of fun reading the articles and critically dissecting them. Guess what? None of them are worth a pinch of the proverbial.

normdoering said...

"2. You don’t get something from nothing"

What is "nothing"? Does "nothing" exist? The closest thing to nothing we know of is the vacuum of space and it produces ghost particles and the Casimir Effect. Is that something from nothing?

Introducing Derren Brown

Anonymous said...

I've never understood why it has to be an either/or proposition. One can believe in a creator AND the method by which "he" created it.

If I create a mud pie, I've got to get mud and mix it with water. If people lived on the mud pie, some could say "Betsy created this mud pie" and some could say "this mud pie was made when mud and water mixed together" and both would be correct.

Not that I'm defending their belief in a magical invisible man in the sky; I'm just wondering why they can't believe both in a creator and the big bang proposition.