Recent discoveries in cosmology show that the universe began at the Big Bang, time matter and space came into existence at once and then the universe began expanding.
This means whatever caused this, had to be outside of time and space and the natural world, because "before" the Big Bang there was no time, space or matter.
Do you agree that the only explanation is that a spaceless, timeless, immaterial creator (by definition) began creating the universe and continues to do so as the universe expands, or do you think there's a better explanation?
Do you think science will kill God, or do you think it's just going to validate something we already know?
At this point, I don't think science can go beyond the Big Bang, so I don't think it's going to kill God even if it wanted to, since science is just the study of the natural world.
- Science wouldn't even be possible without GodVote A
- Science killed God or will eventually kill GodVote B
Most Helpful Guy
Well, science has already killed god a long time ago. This is why we now have the "god of the gaps" as they call it. Basically, science was able to disprove soooo much stuff that the bible and the major religions in general claim that religious people kept going crawling back to those few gaps that are still unexplained. It really feels like religious people are so obsessed with god that they try super hard to find any gap and then go like "wait! Here's something yet unexplained! Let's just say it must've been god!". I think rationally most people (even religious people) know by now that it's extremely unlikely a god has ever existed. There's just too many arguments why that doesn't make any sense. But unfortunately, most people prefer believing what feels good and not what's likely to be true, and so they cling on to faith anyway.
See, it is true that the causes of the big bang are yet unknown. In fact, maybe they will never be known. What personally annoys me quite a bit about religious people is that they constantly want to stuff an explanation into every tiny little gap. Why can't we just agree that we simply don't know and leave it at that for now? It's not something bad to not know. In fact, it is a sign of humility if you can admit that you don't know some things. To me, personally, it gives an almost mystic feeling of being closely connected to this universe I live in. I am a very curious person but maybe it's okay I don't know everything. Human beings are far smaller and far more unimportant than any religious person would ever admit. To the universe, we're about as important as a single atom. Why then, should we know everything?
Secondly, deducing that god must have been the ultimate creator (in this context) is a combination of two different logical fallacies. Firstly, you are committing the fallacy called "argument to ignorance". You are saying that because science couldn't prove so far that the big bang had natural causes, it must have been a supernatural. Obviously, this would be absurd in any other context. You wouldn't assume the cause of your car breaking down was a goblin-attack, even if you don't know the real cause. In fact, a natural cause is always the more likely one. The second fallacy is called "appeal from personal incredulity". It IS possible that there was simply NOTHING before the big bang, even if that doesn't make sense to contemporary science. Just because you personally can't believe that doesn't make a god any more likely.1
- Show AllShow Less