Wednesday, March 09, 2011
And then replied to my comment, "The preponderance of scientific evidence now points to a Big Bang cosmology that BEGAN the universe.” by saying, “Correction - began OUR universe. We have no idea what was there before.”
What Alex means is that he can't be sure what happened "before" the Big Bang, but it sure wasn't God! I think that we have some idea by using reason. I think that we can reason that it cannot be the case that nothing has existed eternally. If nothing was all there always was, then nothing would be all there is now. Since something cannot come from nothing, something had to exist eternally. Every effect has a cause, but because this eternal something is not an effect; it does not need a cause. This something then is an eternal, uncaused cause. Because time, space and matter begin at the Big Bang, we can reason that time, space and matter are not eternal, but caused by this eternal, uncaused cause that is not dependent nor consisting of time, space and matter. So we have reasoned to an immaterial something (mind? spirit?) that is an eternal, uncaused first cause of OUR material universe in space and time.
Because this corresponds with the biblical revelation of God and disagrees with other religious/non-religious descriptions, this lends credibility to the Bible and takes away authority from other religions and worldviews. This is but one reason that weighs heavily on the scale of reason for God/Christianity. Imagine a balance scale that weighs out the reasons for and against belief in God. One side is “for” and the other “against.” Some ideas are small pebbles, others are larger rocks. As an idea is weighed, the rocks can be moved from one side to the other and even on and off of the scale. An agnostic might have a very balanced scale. A Theist has tipped the scale in favor of and an atheist in favor against. The person who has not examined these ideas might have a very empty scale. The point is that Alex and other non-believers often seem to indicate that if one “proof” is not a slam dunk, that should be reason to place the rock on the other side (the default side of non-belief) when it could be that this evidence only left the viewer unsure or in favor of the argument, but have given it less weight. It would seem from the comments of many atheists that they think in this analogy that there is only one large rock to be placed.
Someone could take my evidence that God does not have a beginning and place it for, against or set it aside while they contemplate it. I think that Alex would say that because it is insufficient to “prove” that the God of the Bible and the uncreated creator outside of time, space and matter are the same, we should all take the only large rock and move it to the against side until a time when Theists can prove without a shadow of a doubt and according to the requirements of the atheist’s personal bar of proof that the one large rock can be placed on the other side. This is simply not the way in which decisions are made.