You Don't Necessarily Owe God Anything

[DaRev]

Jumpin said:

Jay520 said:

DaRev said:

Yeah, but they all still run into the same WALL which requires you to belive in something that you can't see. For example the Big Bang Theory says something to the effect that there was a big bang that cause the universe and the same is ever expanding. Well my question is where did the thing that cause the big bang come from, and if the universer is expanding, what space is it expanding into?

It all must point to a creator or else it makes no sense. Things just don't HAPPEN, and even if they do, they don't HAPPEN so perfectly as the sun, air and nature.

Perhaps, but the same could be said for God. Both the BBT and the creationist theory propose that something happened for no reason (well, actually proponents of the BBT don't believe something happened for no reason; they're still investigating the origins of the universe). What makes the BBT more valid is the fact that it doesn't assume the existence of extra beings which we have no evidence of.

If you think there's evidence of a creator, then fine. But how do you know there is only one creator? And how do you know that creator is conscious, all-knowing, all-powerful, and most importantly, all-loving? I mean...how can you add all these traits to it? Saying there was a creator is alerady a stretch, but to add such random traits like being all-loving is ridiculous. It's not necessary to support your audience and just makes it seem even more unbelievable.

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we HAVE to jump to a conclusion and blame God. 

I will argue that the Big Band Theory is not an alternative to God - but rather a scientific theory which strongly supports the existence of God.

Rather the alternative would have been the steady state model which posits that the universe is infinite in size and infinite in age. The Big Bang theory, rather, is a scientific theory that theorizes universe DID in fact have an absolute  beginning, and that the beginning was timless, massless, and spaceless. About 13.7 billion years ago, all physical things came into existence from nothing.

An axiomatic statement would be that which begins has a cause.

If you're familiar with philosophy, you're probably familiar with the Cosmological argument as well:
1. That which begins has a cause.
2. The Universe began
3. Therefore the Universe had a cause.

Since time, space, and matter are all a part of the universe - we can logically conclude that the cause of the universe was uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial entity of unfathomable power (enough to bring something on the scale of the universe into existence).

What we also know from physics relating to the big bang model are two more critical items:

1. When the laws of nature are examined in mathematical terms, certain constants emerge, such as the gravitational constants.  are balanced in such a way that physical and liquid matter are able to exist. Now add in that the quanities of dark matter, dark energy, matter, and energy need to be in certain ratios for gravity to function in the way that we observe, and you get an incredibly minute chance of a physical universe existing where solid and liquid matter can exist. To give example of just one of these constants and to demonstrate just how minute the chance of a universe with solid matter would be, take the atomic weak force: if the atomic weak force would alter just 1 in 10 to the 100th power, then solid matter would not exist in this universe.

2. These contants remain constant, why don't these constants alter shattering the very fabric of existence?  Yet it, and other constants remain in such a state that the universe permits solid and liquid matter, which is required for life.

 

There are three possibilities to explain why the Universe is in the state that it is: Chance, physical necessity, and due to an intelligent design.
1. Chance, which we know from science is astronomically unlikely; it cannot be rationally argued that the universe began as chance. If the universe occurred by chance, the chance of universe which has no solid or liquid matter is astronomically more likely.
*One supporting argument for chance is the multiverse hypothesis, that is, that this universe is one part of an ensemble of undetectable universes, and therefore due to this, the chance of a solid and liquid matter producing universe becomes more likely - yet this theory suffers from devastating objections - including the objection that the chances of molecules randomly coming together and forming our solar system is MUCH more likely than a universe on the scale of ours emerging would be - therefore, by mere chance alone, it is extraoridinarily more likely that we would be seeing a MUCH smaller universe than what we have. This fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis.
2. Physical Necessity is not possible either since the quanitities of matter, energy, and the constants of nature are independent of one and other. One does not require one of the others.
3. This leaves the most logical argument: that the intial state of existence came from an intelligent design.

The big bang theory in fact does quite a lot to support both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments for the existence of God.

 

As for the topic "you don't owe God anything." - I don't agree with the premise that you should have to owe God anything. What would God need? I don't think this is a part of any of the major modern religions. You might owe your Church/temple/mosque dues, but this is simply for the purpose of those respective institutions, not for God. Some of these institutions are corrupt (an example is the Medici run Catholic church of the renaisance period, who convinced people that they could purchase indulgences from them to get into heaven. The Medicis also happened to be the big insurance and banking company of their era.). Some of these institutions use extra funding to support the needy around the world, where governments have failed to provide adequate healthcare along with the basic needs for continued living.

Man (or woman) thanks for that, really. I am not against Science at all. In fact, I think the more you look to science it will point to unknows that will at the same time inevitably point to a creator.

All I know is what the bible says and applying just simple COMMON SENSE I can see that there must be a creator, because our Universe, as you pointed out, fits together too perfectly to be anything other than of a grand design. Science like the BBT can go a long way to proving God I think. The problem is that people, a lot of them in these forums, think that Science and Religion cannot fit together, and even that you cannot rationally, logically, or historically explain God or Religion - but I find that is because they lack knowlege both scientific and spiritual.

With regards the OP, and your last paragraph, I agree that God doesn't need aything from us, cause he says in the Bible that if we humans don't praise him, he can get the rocks to do it. I believe what he does desire from us however is our love, which he doesn't force from us.