Needing Help to Disprove an Atheist Claim about the Big Bang

So I have been trying to convince my friend about the existence of one God who created the universe and I brought up the Big Bang. My friend believes that the Big Bang was just an event that happened in an infinite universe that is above ours to create a universe 14 billion years ago. I tried to search up answers on how to deal with his claim as I have never encountered it before. How would I disprove this claim?

If such a super-universe exists, and maybe it does, it would not change our fundamental belief that God created everything that exists. You could ask him where that super-universe came from. I would say that God created it.

If the super-universe is infinite in space and in time, and higher-dimensional as well, even that doesn’t contradict our faith. God can create infinite frameworks of space and time.

3 Likes

What evidence is there for this super-universe? And as Beryllos asked, where did it come from?

1 Like

Altho I have to say, I don’t think this is the best way to prove the existence of a Creator. I think that life, increasing complexity, and the existence of things like love are better.

3 Likes

Nothing in science is known with absolute certainty. So stop restricting God to scientific claims. You are backing a horse that will always lose.

1 Like

The Big Bang Theory is one of many about the nature of the universe.

Let the scientists figure it out. That’s why they get paid the big bucks.

It still doesn’t disprove God.

Seriously, science and religion have nothing to fear from each other.

4 Likes

I believe the Big Bang was originally the idea of a Catholic priest. Sorry I’m confused about what your question is. That the universe isn’t as old as scientists say it is?

2 Likes

So my friend basically claims the universe started because of natural events in this supposed infinite universe as he claims that given an infinite amount of time and since he claims that matter cannot be created or destroyed then the bigger universe created our universe.

1 Like

Agreed. I think there is an argument that there must be an uncaused cause. If our universe was caused by, or is a phenomenon of, a super-universe, and even if that super-universe was caused by a still greater hyper-universe, and so on, eventually you get to the cause of all that exists, that does not depend on anything. That would be God.

2 Likes

Sorry it’s beyond me. I fear you may go back and forward with your friend “Show me a picture of the infinite multiverse” and “Show me a picture of God” all day long. shrugs

1 Like

Stephen Hawking wrote a book, The Grand Design, about theories like that. If I recall correctly, Hawking actually stated in that book that these theories prove there is no God, or no need for belief in God. That goes to show how little the genius understood.

And I am not being sarcastic. Hawking was a genius. I’m a scientist, I read the book, and I think it’s a fascinating science book. The Grand Design pretends to disprove God and/or contradict faith in the Creator, but really just doesn’t.

1 Like

Since the multiverse (or infinite universe) theory has been proposed to counter the fine tuning argument, I suppose the best strategy is to show that the fine tuning argument is scientifically very tenable while the multiverse idea is basically unprovable because it is untestable by science.

Australian astrophysicist Luke Barnes has published some excellent work on the topic.

He writes…

Could a multiverse proposal ever be regarded as scientific? Foft 228 notes the similarity between undetectable universes and undetectable quarks, but the analogy is not a good one.
The properties of quarks — mass, charge, spin, etc. — can be inferred from measurements.
Quarks have a causal effect on particle accelerator measurements; if the quark model were wrong, we would know about it. In contrast, we cannot observe any of the properties of a multiverse {M, f(m), π}, as they have no causal effect on our universe. We could be completely wrong about everything we believe about these other universes and no observation could correct us. The information is not here. The history of science has repeatedly taught us that experimental testing is not an optional extra. The hypothesis that a multiverse actually exists will always be untestable.

Source: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

Explained with commentary, here…

1 Like

So we hop in the Tardis and keep going back. And you say ‘We’ll get to the first cause soon’. And we keep going. And you say ‘Not long now’. And still we go back. ‘Nearly there’ you say. But we never get there.

Where’s God then?

2 Likes

The point is that there is an endless regression unless one posits an uncreated Creator, an uncashed Causer, etc…

Either you have something out of nothing or you have something out of something eternal.

A regression suggests a return. If time restarts at every Big Bang then you don’t go backwards.

If I understand you correctly, you are describing an infinite physical universe. Let’s say it is infinite in every way imaginable: space, time, dimensions, layers, even causality.

Put it all together, and you have the entire physical reality. All physical causes, though infinite in number, are contained within it. Then what caused it? Something beyond all physical reality.

We’re getting closer to God now.

You ask him for evidence of his claim and wait for the crickets to chirp.

2 Likes

No, not an infinite universe. A self generating universe. The end of this one is identical to the begining of the next. Rinse and repeat.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.