Did God cause the big bang? Thoughts?

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
ætherborn98's picture
No. Those people didn't need

No. Those people didn't need that knowledge. It would have to contradict to be contradictory.

Deforres's picture
Are you suggesting god

Are you suggesting god purposely withheld critical information!? Tsk tsk, that's another point deduction.

God: -666 points.(yes, I do keep track, and that is the number it landed on.)

algebe's picture
@Hawk Flint

@Hawk Flint
"No. Those people didn't need that knowledge. It would have to contradict to be contradictory."

But it does contradict--by omission. It's supposed to be a full and literal account of the creation of the world, but it misses out the atmosphere, half of the biosphere, and gravity.

We're told the bible was divinely inspired, in other words, written or dictated by god, who by theist definition knows everything, yet as soon as someone identifies a fundamental error, the bible goes back to being based on the limited world view of bronze age nomads who didn't need to know about bacteria and gravity.

Deforres's picture
If your creationyth is to

If your creationyth is to have any credibility..... Wait, "Credible myth" is an oxymoron. Never mind.

Dave Matson's picture
I suppose they would ruin the

I suppose that bacteria or galaxies would ruin the poetic rendering of Genesis I, but they would sure make believers out of us! Shouldn't that carry some weight with God?

Dave Matson's picture
Xavier de Forres,

Xavier de Forres,

Thank you for posting chapter 1 of Genesis. It prevented me from making a small but embarrassing blunder!

Deforres's picture
It was no problem at all,

It was no problem at all, good sir.

ætherborn98's picture
"Nothing here is scientific!"

"Nothing here is scientific!"

Did you interpret it literally?

Deforres's picture
There is no other way for a

There is no other way for a non believing anti-theist to take it.

mykcob4's picture
That right there is what your

That right there is what your problem is. Why would you believe that a god used science AND super powers? If a god had super powers, there would be no need for science. If a god needed science he would not have super powers. Since science has proven that the universe didn't need a god to be created, there is no need for super powers or a god.
Since science and the scientific process are proven, there is no need for a god. Since a god is decidedly NOT proven, then why even consider a god?

ætherborn98's picture
God can use anything to

God can use anything to accomplish His plans. But I wonder what "The Great Green Spider Gilganorshiayulamethulabehwaquelleraguuuurtinatheballerina" would have done.

Kataclismic's picture
Flowering plants still couldn

Flowering plants still couldn't exist before the sun so the bible would still be wrong.

ætherborn98's picture
Unless God kept them alive.

Unless God kept them alive.

Deforres's picture
But in your myth, god hadent

But in your myth, god hadent created the plants yet.

ætherborn98's picture
So? I was saying that He

I was saying that He COULD keep the plants alive without the sun. And He did create the plants before the sun. So He kept the plants alive.

[Had to edit this.]

Deforres's picture
Could means just as much as

Could means just as much as what if. I.E, nothing.

ætherborn98's picture
You mean it COULD mean just

You mean it COULD mean just as much as [what] if.

Deforres's picture
No, I mean it DOES.

No, I mean it DOES.

Deforres's picture
Genesis[1:11] Then God said,

Genesis[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.

This comes after:

Genesis[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

God could not have kept the plants alive, Because he hadent created the plants until AFTER the sun and earth in your mythology.

If your not willing to check what you say about your myth against the book of your myth, I'll be more than happy to do it for you.

ætherborn98's picture
"Genesis 1:11 Then God said,

"Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so."

"This comes after:
Genesis[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,"

(Not sure if you're changing the wording or just using a different translation, but the correct translation is,"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It's says that in the beginning He made the heavens and the earth, then goes on to explain the order He did it in.)

"God could not have kept the plants alive, Because he hadent created the plants until AFTER the sun and earth in your mythology."

He's all powerful. Yes He can. Is "truthology" a word?

"If your not willing to check what you say about your myth against the book of your myth, I'll be more than happy to do it for you."

Genesis 1:1-19
The Beginning

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.

God said, “Let there be light,” then there was light. God saw that the light was good. He separated light from darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

(No sun or moon here, just light and darkness)

God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault, separating the water under the vault from the water above it. And then it was so. God called the vault “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let the dry ground appear.” And then it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.

God then said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with their seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And then it was so. The land produced vegetation: the plants bearing seed according to their kinds and the trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

(Here it is. The plant creation.)

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate day from night, let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And then it was so. Then God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day, the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern day and night, and to separate the light from darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

(Here He puts the sun and moon in charge of when people will call the day "day" and the night "night." Hence, the "governing")

"If your not willing to check what you say about your myth against the book of your myth, I'll be more than happy to do it for you."

(Yep. I read it.) -_<

[This has been edited.]

Deforres's picture
You can't have any truth in

You can't have any truth in myth. Your god is no more powerful than Zeus or Ra.

Dave Matson's picture
Hawk Flint,

Hawk Flint,

I see Genesis 1:1 as an introductory/summary verse which precedes the actual creation account.

ætherborn98's picture
Uh..so do i?

Uh..so do i?

Kataclismic's picture
So I am god and I will tell

So I am god and I will tell you the story of how I created the universe with obvious flaws in my story so that you then need to make up your own explanations to make sense of mine and then tell everyone that doesn't believe you that I can do anything because I am a god. Since it would fuck up the whole story if I said that I kept plants alive before the sun existed, then had to get rid of the light that I had already created so I could put the sun in place of it, I'll just leave it to you to tell that story for me. Wait, what story was I trying to tell again?

OF COURSE! Why didn't I think of THAT!?!

Oh, and obviously if I don't believe your story of how god did it but didn't put it in his own story so you could tell me, then I am just denying god. How do you move around carrying that much ego?

ætherborn98's picture
"I'm Edwin Hubble (or was it

"I'm Edwin Hubble (or was it Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître?), and a big bang created the universe with obvious flaws so that you then need to make up your own explanations to make sense of it and then tell everyone that doesn't believe you that it's true because God simply HAS to have NO part in science and my life."

"Oh, and obviously if I don't believe your story of how god did it but didn't put it in his own story so you could tell me, then I am just denying god. How do you move around carrying that much ego?"

How are my beliefs ego?

Kataclismic's picture
Georges Lemaître was talking

Georges Lemaître was talking about a hypothesis that he wasn't there to witness. It would be expected for him to have flaws in his analysis, that's what makes an analysis. God was supposedly there when he made everything. He has no excuse for not filling in all the details. You filling in the details for him is egotistical.

Your post is neither a proper analogy nor an influential argument.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Hawk Flint - "I'm Edwin

Hawk Flint - "I'm Edwin Hubble (or was it Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître?), and a big bang created the universe with obvious flaws so that you then need to make up your own explanations to make sense of it and then tell everyone that doesn't believe you that it's true because God simply HAS to have NO part in science and my life."

Lemaitre's work had to do with the evolution laws of a homogeneous isotropic gas in thermal equilibrium. But nice fake quote.

mykcob4's picture
That makes no sense. A plant

That makes no sense. A plant is by its nature something that needs sunlight. If a god created plants before sunlight, it stands to reason that plants after they were created would never need sunlight. Did you god make a mistake? Did he go back and remake the plants? The thing is that you are justifying and have no proof. You can't offer what you call logic and then totally abandon logic because the outcome just doesn't fit the way you need it to.

ætherborn98's picture
"A plant is by its nature

"A plant is by its nature something that needs sunlight. If a god created plants before sunlight, it stands to reason that plants after they were created would never need sunlight. Did you god make a mistake? Did he go back and remake the plants?"

God knows how He created everything, and He kept the plants alive until He made the sun. That's what I think.

Dave Matson's picture
Hawk Flint,

Hawk Flint,

Bible Problem #1. No problem, God created a miracle!
Bible Problem #2. No problem, God created a miracle!
Bible Problem #3. No problem, God created a miracle!

Is there anything left to discuss? Shall we bother to look at the evidence?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.