FOR
Argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause -> the universe began to exist -> nothing can cause itself -> the universe has a cause (that's not itself) -> an omni-3 (creator) god is the best solution to this question

Objection: What caused God? This is another god of the gaps argument.
Rebuttal: One of the properties of an omni-3 god is that he is uncaused. No, it is a deduction from the fact that the universe began to exist (and it appears we live in a flat universe, so the Big Crunch oscillating universe is unlikely).

AGAINST
Argument: God wouldn't 'need' a big bang to create his universe; he could create it without the big bang and it would require much less time.

Objection: Humans should not question the intentions of a being whose intellect is infinitely greater than theirs.
Rebuttal: What other option do I have? All I have are my own senses and intellect, etc....

Meh, I thought of a few arguments and counters. Please help me fill in the blanks and let me know what arguments you think are the most convincing.

Thanks

I don't know if its most convincing but a Catholic priest developed the big bang theory and he thought it confirmed Genesis. Maybe you could rephrase this in argument form.

Neither

I agree logically, this.

Although my personal feelings are that It's odd that the universe is 14 billion years old, and that God waited 14 billion years to send his message to very primitive desert people on one planet in the vastness of it all.

Maybe there were earlier civilizations on other planets.

Georges Lemaître (a Jesuit priest) first developed the theory, but it was the Pope himself who proclaimed that it had proven Genesis. I think Lemaître thought you could take the theory and conclude a wide range of things, depending on your point of view.

To answer your OP I need to qualify and change some things. I'd say, "Big Bang theory" instead of evidence since I don't believe there is evidence for the BBT, but data that is taken as part of a narrative of the Big Bang story. And I would say "God of the Bible" instead of just "God", since "God" can mean virtually anything one makes it mean. So, would the BBT, if true, be evidence for or against the God of the Bible? I would say against, since by design it seeks to account for the universe as we know it via naturalism, and if this is successful, one perhaps ought to apply Occam's Razor to the notion of God.

If you are asking if the evidence (data) that is attributed to the BBT by the scientific community is evidence for or against God, it is certainly evidence for God, but we'd have to get into specifics because how one interprets data is very important here.

Just my thoughts.

Haha I forgot YECs are against the BBT.

I haven't read the thread yet, but from the title I guess the answer is "no".

Now read the thread, the answer is still "no" and OMG WTF??

How on Earth is "an omni-3 (creator) god" the best solution to this question? Scientists have multiple (speculative) theories about what caused the big bang - the fact they haven't all just given up and decided goddidit pretty much refutes that this is the "best" point.

Also, all that follows from the axiom "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is that something has always existed. Your deduction that this must be an omni-3 god is totally unsupported by anything else you have said.

I don't have the knowledge to challenge your "an oscillating universe is unlikely" and would guess there are very few people worldwide who are capable of this and I doubt that any of them are 2+2 members.

Going from the Bible, God has a habit of doing things in the most impressive way rather than the easy way you would expect an omni-3 God to act eg the great flood. It is almost as if these have been written to be exciting stories rather than true accounts of events that actually happened...

If God does act totally unrationally to our "lesser minds" then I think he should be more forgiving of our failure to understand, and hence believe in him.

I wonder if the theists will say "for" and the atheists will say "against..."

Before you go on, back up and apply this:

Argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause -> the universe began to exist -> nothing can cause itself -> the universe has a cause (that's not itself)

to this:

-> an omni-3 (creator) god is the best solution to this question

First explain why an omni-3 (creator) god gets to jump past the logic presented in the first part of the argument.

You should expect scientists to put forth natural explanations because introducing god doesn't really add to the explanation. There is like a 0% chance that scientists would "give up and decide godditit;" so no, the fact that scientists continue to explore natural possibilities does not refute that it might be the best deduction.

The argument isn't that it must be an omni-3 god, I said that it was possibly the best explanation. Some people might agree or disagree. It seems totally subjective whether you think godditit is "the best deduction." That's what this thread is about...

Is the big bang (considered in isolation, and in your opinion) more likely to be evidence for or against an omni-3 god, such as the "God of the Bible"?

I'm no physicist, either.

Most theists will say "for" and most atheists will say "neither", imo.

Lestat, what steps did I miss?

Positing a creator of some kind is still at least an option, right? Then it would be subjective whether you found the conclusion convincing

Name something that began to exist and has a cause. If your child builds a Lego castle, did he create it or did he just move the blocks around?

That's not what this thread is about goddangit. It's just a popular argument.

Understood. I'm just indirectly pointing out that "neither" is really the only logical answer to the OP. The "For" argument fails for the reason I stated above and the "Against" argument is purely speculative without further knowledge.

The question posed in the OP is like asking, "Here is a box with unknown contents. Do you believe there's a frog or an iron inside?"

Your argument FOR: States that the universe began to exist -> Nothing can cause itself -> the universe has a cause (that's not istself) ->, therefore an omni-3 (creator) god is in the same position of self creating as the universe. You have made no ground. My question is:

Why can't you put these same statements to an omni-3 (creator) god? That is: Nothing can cause itself -> an omni-3 (creator) god must have a cause (that is not itself) -> Therefore, an omni-3 god is no more likely to have caused itself than the universe.

In other words, I don't think you get to plug in an omni-3 (creator) god as an answer to perplexing questions and declare it immune from the very same questions in the argument you're using for the existence of an omni-3 god.

I tried to cover this objection in the rebuttal section.

The answer would be that an omni-3 god never began to exist, hence it would not need to be caused (whereas the universe, as we know it, seems to have begun to exist). However, as Our House mentioned, the whole idea of 'beginning to exist' and 'causing' is unclear.

Neither.
How are omnipotent, omniscient and (omni)benevolent supposed to imply uncaused?
My preferred objection: the 'argument' isn't an argument, it's a premise (which conveniently includes the desired conclusion).

I really don't know.
Is it a bad premise?

It makes no sense (at least not to me), why we should accept this for an omni-3 god and not accept the same for the universe. If the omni-3 god never began to exist, hence did not need to be caused, why can't the same be said for the universe? I think this question needs to be answered first before we can move on.

Oh, I see. The difference is that what we call the universe appears to have 'come into existence' at a finite time in the past. You could (I suppose) posit an uncaused multiverse or whatever, but we don't have observational evidence for that. If by 'the universe' you mean 'everything that is,' I don't have an argument for you. I'm only talking about the little big bang universe that we currently live in.

P.S. why is everyone saying "Neither"? I don't really get it