The Question:
“Secondly, why should anyone assume that God was around before the Big Bang”
My Answer:
I think that would fall under the argument of cause and effect, or the idea of motion. As some philosophers argue, everything in the universe is in motion (circulation of the planets, stars, atoms, protons, etc). We understand through simple observation that in order for something to move in our physical world (exp: a ball), it must be moved. A ball sitting on an even floor does not start moving unless it is pushed (by a force, a person, the wind, etc).
With this movement (the effect) needing a push (a cause), a philosopher or Christian may come to the conclusion that the universe must have a Universal Mover/Pusher, or as some call, the First Cause.
That would be one role, and seeing that the Big Bang, if following these day-to-day observations of cause and effect, it would also need a first cause. We don’t witness anything material creating itself from non-existence into existence, so we have to assume something is causing the effect of creation. One would argue The Big Bang has a first cause; or a pusher, that isn’t material because it would be illogical for a material’s first cause to also be material, especially if we’re talking about something that’s supposed to be the beginning of all materials/matter. That material pusher would only need another pusher before that!
One argument to why a God (a Divine Being, with intellect, and not of this material world) would work as a First Cause, or the Pusher, is that this God would be all-existing and not of this world. The reason why a God wouldn’t need a first cause, is because He doesn’t exists in this material universe. God is not a product of time, matter, space, and light because He would have created time, matter, space, and light (and logically, a creator cannot be dependent on its creation in order to exist).
We Observe: Matter decays. If all things are made of matter, than all things must also one day decay (Your Chair, Your Body, The Earth, The Sun, etc).
We Observe: Things do not move on their own. If you see a ball rolling your way, you automatically assume someone or something pushed it. It’s illogical to assume the ball merely was bored and decided to roll itself.
We Observe: God is NOT of this world. God cannot be made up and subjected to matter because, if He created it, it would be illogical to assume He’s subject to it. A chef who makes a cake is obviously not made up of his cake, and so the inventor is not made up of the invention. It’s illogical to explain the chef in terms of his cake, as it’s illogical to explain the inventor in terms of his/her invention.
We Conclude: Knowing God (or The First Cause, or The Universal Pusher) is not of this world, and not made up of matter and material, we know He doesn’t need to decay like matter. Living on a plane/heaven made up of spirit, it’s understanding that He has always existed, and if this is so (not needing to be pushed and not needing to be decaying material), you would not need to assume there’s a “Big Bang” to God, or a First Cause to Him, or His own Pusher. He simply is All-Existing, All-Eternal, because he’s not subjected to his inventions (time, matter, etc). Add to that Him being Intelligent, and Him possessing Free Will, and you understand how He moves himself (as we move ourselves) and why He would create the universe to begin with (His intelligence).
For this reason, all material things (as mentioned above), would stem from a first cause, and this first cause could understandably be a Divine Being existing on a Heavenly/Divine/Non-Materialistic heaven/plane (non-material as in not being made up of matter, which be know matter as not eternal as it decomposes and dies).
Of course this is a very brief explanation, but hopefully the point comes across.
Hope that helps explain number 2 for you.
God Bless!
-LeonardOoh
leonardooh.wordpress.com 
Hi Leonard. Thanks for the response.
Anytime ;D
you inspired by today’s lecture in sacred texts? i thought the luther quotation about the church being ‘superior to the gospels’ was a scathing, and challenging, argument. what do you have to say?
Hi Leonord!
Your argument for God being the first cause only requires that the first cause “would be eternal and not of this world.” Suppose that you are correct. Then the only thing that we know of this first cause is that it “would be eternal and not of this world.” I can name a large number of objects that would fulfill this requirement. You have not supplied a sufficient reason why this first cause would be a God, let alone the Christian God, assuming that you are Christian. Is it not the case that this “not of this world” cause could just as easily be the Devil? Or an alien of another dimension? Or that it could be some unknown effect from an alternate dimension?
kermitt,
That is all very true, and I wouldn’t disagree with it. That’s one reason why i stressed such words as ‘Pusher’ and ‘First Cause’. I wasn’t expecting to cross from a first cause into the Omni Intellegent God of Abrahamic Faiths in just one leap. I just wanted to hint at the possibility that there exist this first cause, which would leave us to asking who or what this ‘Creator’ is?
The argument is a long one, and maybe one day I’ll argue from this point, to why I believe it’s not an alien, , the devil, or some force, but an intellectual God with a will.
To offer a short short short summary, I would argue that Christ and the Bibles Characterstics of God fit into the mold of an intellegent Creator/Pusher, who woud have the purpose, the means, and the ability to create this existence, as well as the ability to transcend it. Of course it’s much more complicated than that, because we’d have to discuss why a Devil or aliens cannot fit that mold, but it’s something done piece by piece.
Thanks for your comment!
I see. I would be most interested in this argument.
I myself think it is OK to leave it at an “I don’t know?” Why must we always pretend we know all the answers when probably the most obvious thing to every person in the world is that we have not even begun to understand the universe / dimension we live in. So much is yet to be discovered and we should take great joy in our long slow journey of understanding.
If you are interested in the argument, and like always im late to the party, read the Suma Theologica by Thomas Aquinas he first postulated the unmoved mover theory and the first cause theory. The objection stated by Kermittheagnostic is the one most often raised by those arguing against the unmoved mover also the argument of infinite regress is a popular one. Anyway I don’t know if you’ve ever read William Paley’s: The Natural Theologian, if you haven’t you should, this guy totally laid the ground work for intellegent design.
Yup, just a big late 😀
Sounds good. If I get some time through the chaotic schedule, I’ll try to squeeze those readings in. Hope everythings good with you.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PccZAAAAMAAJ&dq=william+paley%27s+the+natural+theologian&pg=PP1&ots=Of-Ls72yg_&sig=guKvJMFNXxnh_qpC4KNuZ1EHoWw&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3Dwilliam%2BPaley%27s:%2BThe%2BNatural%2BTheologian%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP10,M1
There’s the Natural Theologian for you. 😀
Hi guys! I lost track of this blog! Gald you responded. Now who’s late to the party?
I am familiar with Thomas Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God and it’s flaws as even recognised by Christians. From everything I have read, my arguments against it are sound.
Did you pay any attention to the Dover, Pennsylvania court case between ID and Evlolution?
I guess not.
Sorry Kermit, month leading up to finals are beyond chaotic. No free time anywhere. I was up all night the night before working on a big paper about war and the bible.
But no, I have no looked into the court case. I don’t know if I would warrant a secular course the authority to decide such a spiritual issue (if you’re mentioning it to resolve the authority [if any] of the ID movement).
However, I would love it if you could send me the case briefing to see where you’re coming from.
No problem. How is the paper coming?
It was the case of the school board that tried to get the school to allow time for the teaching of ID in science class. The teachers and parents filed suit to stop them. It was the biggest case since the “Monkey Trials.”
The conservative judge ruled against the school board saying ID was “not science.” I saw a TV program about the case recently. It was amazing how absurd ID looked compared to Evolution. Even I was surprised at the contrast.
So, no I was not mentioning it to resolve authority I was just wondering if you had known of it. Or if Justin had as he mentioned ID. And if so what you thought of it. I find it hard for anyone to accept ID as science. It just is not.
-Good luck on finals!