There Was Nothing, A Great Void, Absolutely Nothing...

[sandyRoe]

Then there was a big bang and the ejecta was propelled faster than the speed of light to fill the cosmos.
And some would say that my simple faith is far fetched. Is the account of the creation in Geneses any more unlikely than the scientific alternatives?

[jim360]

Yes, because we've just observed that this apparently far-fetched scientific theory turns out to match what is observed to a ludicrous degree of accuracy...

[sandyRoe]

I won't argue that there wasn't a big bang. But who lit the fuse?

[jim360]

There's no evidence that anyone had to.

[bibblebub]

The physics behind how your computer works would also seem far fetched if you don't know more than the basics and yet you take it for granted every time you use that machine.

[pixie373]

Who made God, sandy?

[sandyRoe]

Pixie, the catechism tells us that God always was and ever will be.

[Bazile]

//Who made God, sandy?/

Nobody , 'he ' just came into existence ( just like the big bang )

[pixie373]

But what do you think, with your logical mind?

[sandyRoe]

That's beyond my meagre abilities. I'm happy to accept the teaching of the church that he was always there and will always be there.

[Old_Geezer]

I will always be at this moment in time.

[pixie373]

Me too. Until I'm not.

[jomifl]

Sandy you seem to have a rather simplistic understanding of the Big Bang. It wasn't like a large bomb, it was more like a kind of crystallisation where matter condensed out of energy, as a crude analogy. If you can swallow the idea that god always existed then the BB must be easier too accept because it comes with explanations that fit the evidence.

[jim360]

"Pixie, the catechism tells us that God always was and ever will be."

The implication of this is that some things after all don't need a cause. That's how the "First Cause" argument goes. But then if something can exist without needing something to cause it, then you could perhaps say that the Universe is capable of existing without needing a cause, and save yourself one link in the chain.

[sandyRoe]

Jom, I don't deny the BB. Hitherto my understanding of such things was limited to the bangs that were heard and seen around my home town. They always had a hand somewhere to light the fuse.

[Psybbo]

Sandy, cheer up, we're all heading for oblivion xx

[pixie373]

Lol :-)

[sandyRoe]

Psybbo, it amuses me to try and tease the Goodly unGodly. Unfortunately, I'm not as good at it as I'd like to be

[joko]

Lol ... that's your 'evidence' that religion is more believable than the big bang? - 'because the BB sounds silly' ...?
seriously?

[jim360]

At least half of the problem is that people always imagine nothingness to mean a literal absence of everything. Unfortunately, or perhaps luckily, this is impossible. Every time you write down an attempt to describe a theory of nature, that leads to the conclusion that "nothingness" just cannot exist. Things can -- and must -- be able to pop in and out of material existence, entirely spontaneously. Once you realise this and allow for it it's quite reasonable to allow for even the Universe itself to pop into spontaneous existence, and the need for someone to "light the fuse" just vanishes. This is not to say that there definitely wasn't such a fuse-lighter. Merely that you don't need one.