TENSION BETWEEN THE BIG BANG AND CREATION FROM NOTHING

Religion says: "There can be no universe without God."

Even God never said that.  What right has man to speak for God that he did this and that if God never disclosed it? 

The doctrine says God made all from nothing but that tells us nothing more.  As the doctrine is so mysterious, all you can say is that he made all but not comment on whether things could come about if he did not exist.

Science treats the universe as if it were a self-sufficient, self-contained and independent system. It sees no need for God to set it up. The universe can do without him.  Science can do without him.

What about this argument, "The universe depends on God for everything and even its own existence. Yet God should be able to make a self-sufficient universe. If he has done, then we have no reason to think that the universe implies a God.  But by faith we sense that he has made all things."

That is as irrational as finding a mud patch on your drive way and arguing that maybe your spouse designed it.

Science assumes that anything supernatural cannot be called on as a causal factor in the universe.

Religion disagrees.

Religion assumes that what looks supernatural really is a caused event. What if it is uncaused? If nothing has the power to become something, then you don't need a God to create.  God may make nothing turn into something but it must have that power in the first place.  What if it is nothing that makes a man rise from the dead? 

If Jesus really rose from the dead as in a miracle, it may be the work of something that rightly or wrongly thinks it is uncaused.  \It may be meant to be seen as uncaused.

Religion has no right to look at a miracle and impose respect for causation on it.  If the miracle wants it to then the miracle is not from an honest source.  It would be another reason to suspect with David Hume that the miracle is from error prone and lying man.  Or that it is a pseudo-miracle, or a piece of luck that just happened to seem to be a good miracle.

Creation is when something comes from nothing. Religion adds that creation is when God brings something into being without any prior materials at all.  The Bible says God commanded things to exist and they came into being.  But in the naive thinking of those times words were powers so his speech was the raw material. 

The Big Bang is not creation. The Big Bang happened to something that was already there. Creation is not a scientific idea. Religion says that creating is current and is not a past event. In other words, if God makes he has to keep making otherwise there will be nothing again.  It is sustained and continuous creation.   It does not seem scientific to say that a supreme intelligence would make the Big Bang look like the origin of all things when it is not.  Science cannot work if there is a higher power that is using deflection and lies.  And why do that?  It is wasteful.

Religion says: we believe that something came from nothing. God made something from nothing, this something exploded at the Big Bang. We don't know why God made the Big Bang look like the start of creation for creation is not a past event but a perpetual miracle. He creates now. It is creation that keeps all things in existence.

Creation says that God repeats the creation every moment of time. That is what a perpetual miracle means. That wrecks science.  Is the grain of sand the same one I had yesterday.  I cannot say.  Or could it be that the grain of sand only seems to be the same one.  If science thought there was a chance at all that the materials it tests were replacements for the materials it set aside, it would not bother with experiments any more.

Religion says: A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. Perhaps one day, the existence of God will be regarded as a scientific fact.

It is a scientific fact that no sign of God's activity has been found.

A thousand difficulties do not make one doubt. There are some difficulties with evolution and natural selection. Bringing God into it leads to more of them and there is enough already. Occam's Razor says there is enough without that. A major difficulty would be the idea of a good God who would willingly devise such a cruel method as natural selection for making living beings.  Also anything cruel is unreliable by virtue of being cruel. And in addition to that it sets up false appearances.  If science allows for a God who may be lying then science is no longer science.

People will deny evolution or natural selection is a fact and say it is a belief or opinion.  They will do this in their arrogance despite understanding the evidence and reasoning behind it. Calling a fact a view or a belief or opinion is a clever way of stopping it being taken as seriously as it deserves. It ignores the fact it is not an opinion that God has not be observed to be doing anything - the evidence says there is no sign of divine action.

Religion sometimes insists that God tweaks the universe in an undetectable way to bring about his plan.  Theistic evolutionists think he does that with evolution. But we have no reason to assume that any intelligence is doing that. Surely if there was a plan, it would be necessary to let it be seen that he was acting? Religion is making superfluous assumptions.

No Copyright