Is the Big Bang Proof of God?

Perhaps a little walk down memory lane will help you connect the dots and grasp the meaning of my brief response. But first, a couple of definitions are appropriate useful.

Screenshot 2021-09-30 at 08-26-53 malarkey - Google Search

Screenshot 2021-09-30 at 08-25-24 malarkey - Google Search

“Hyper-malarkey” is neologism of my own making. Ordinarily, “malarkey” would have been a sufficient response; however, IMO, when making extravagant claims about God, an ordinary response merits “extraordinary” emphasis: ergo, the prefix of “hyper”.

I’m 73 years old, and in all those years I have “seen”, i.e. read and heard, a goodly number of “proofs of the existence of God”, but I can tell you that there ain’t a one of them has ever clinched the case. To be clear, I believe in the fundamental Christian doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth’s crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and ascension into the place from which He now reighns as God. As a consequence of that belief, I am convinced that the only proof of God’s existence is a vivid and very real encounter with Him, such as He chooses in His mercy to give someone. Absent such an encounter, there have been many who have nevertheless believed and trusted in Him and that faith has been the foundation of their hope in Him.

And I have personally known some of them and am absolutely certain that I know whereof I testify.

Now for that little walk down memory lane …

  • @ding asked the opening question, “What if God created/allowed the Big Bang to happen?”
  • My response was intentionally brief and intended to convey my disdain for “the Big Bang theory”.
  • Whether gavin_kemp’s post was a response to my post or not, his quasi-rational claim that “the fact that the big bang is one of the best proofs of the existence of God” struck me as an extravagant claim, … to the point of being “excessive nonsense”, or “hyper-malarkey.”

Um, I should have used the quote feature since you didn’t click the little back arrow that would take you back to the point of departure for my reply. My fault. So let’s try again. This is what I don’t grasp:

If God created/allowed the Big Bang to happen, then the expanding universe isn’t anywhere because there’s no “where” else to be.

But thank you for the explanation of hyper-malarkey.

1 Like

I would say that Big Bang is not proof of God but it fits well to the idea that God created the universe - He said and it was.

Big Bang is not very important as such, except for those studying it. What is more fascinating and important is existence - that matter/energy and we are. That is a fascinating phenomenon.

Were did this all come from? We don’t know but thinking of it leads easily to the conclusion that the Creator is not an unbelievable explanation. Assuming that everything just happened to come from nothing is difficult to believe, as is the idea that there is no beginning.
Those that do not believe in the Creator can always ask the question ‘where did God come from?’. Yet, they cannot give a more credible explanation. Whatever we think of existence, the beginning is a matter of faith.
Of course, this does not mean that scientists should not study the beginning. Inventing a bunch of hypotheses is fine but the question is if there is credible evidence for any of the hypotheses. At the moment, I would say that the answer is no.

The idea that the sum of the universe is nothing, zero, is a theoretical concept that is in conflict with our everyday life. Even if the total amount of antimatter and matter in the universe would be the same, it does not negate the facts that fire is hot and we are.

The BB is proof of eternal nature as it happened once upon a time for our insignificant universe as for the infinity of all others from eternity. God is irrelevant to that fact. The only warrant for Him is Jesus.

And that wouldn’t be so bad if atheists left it there. But often online atheists want to count use of demonstrably bad arguments for theism as an argument in favor of atheism, another bad argument. Use by some Christians of a bad justification for belief doesn’t mean there aren’t better ones and even if there weren’t that would not count as positive support for strong atheism.

Personally I think the best reasons for belief have no strong rational justification because they are not intellectual in nature. Still, the intellect wants something to do and for those convinced intellect is the best or most important part of us it will always seem like grounds for atheism though it isn’t.

1 Like

I see a lot of evidence that my recently learned choice term, ‘motivated reasoning’, is quite evident in broad generalizations (such as necessary infinities or eternities) while ignoring or denying empirical evidence.

The idea that there is any eternal nature independent of God (or in spite of him) is a good example, and the big bang certainly is not proof that there is. I like Stephen Hawking’s lecture, The Beginning of Time, where he basically says that anyone who thinks they know anything about ‘before’ the beginning of time doesn’t know what they are talking about.

This is rather profound. I still have to digest it. Thanks

1 Like

Maggie, only one example among many, but beautifully illustrative, had strong rational justification. I have to suggest that anyone denying it needs to examine themselves for ‘motivated reasoning’.

Only speaking for myself but that sort of justification isn’t at all convincing for me. But it isn’t the sort I had in mind. I was thinking of the cosmological argument and that sort of highly abstract mumbo jumbo which I personally think are wasted effort. Your example obviously was quite heart felt and convincing for her. I’m not swayed by it but neither am I offended by it the way I am the dishonesty and obfuscation I see in the other type.



Edit: Understood I don’t understand. Have you analyzed why. It’s not about her feelings, how ‘heartfelt’ anything was, but the empirical details and the objective meaning infused.

Is the Big Bang proof of God?

Of course not.

Nor is the genetic and fossil evidence proof of evolution.

Science does not deal in proofs. The way science works is that theory and hypotheses predict the experimental results. Even if this does not prove the theories and hypotheses are correct, it still makes it unreasonable to insist on beliefs to the contrary. It is like believing that the sun will not rise in the morning despite the fact that it continues to do so every morning that we live.

Thus as arguments for the existence of God go, the fact that theists correctly predicted that the universe had a beginning while scientists assumed that it was steady state is very much like the reasons we believe in scientific theories because they correctly predict the results of our observations and measurements. Thus the fact remains that this is one the theists got right when the scientists got it wrong.

THAT is not a God of the gaps argument any more than the genetic and fossil evidence is a gaps argument for evolution. Otherwise you open the door for them to say that you are stubbornly believing in evolution to fill in the “gap” of explanation of scripture for these things. And why shouldn’t they wait for God to explain these things while you are waiting for science to explain the big bang. That is what you get when you misuse this “god of the gaps” complaint – turning it back around on you.

1 Like

This is a well worn path I don’t care to take with you again, Dale. We disagree mostly because our perspectives and commitments are different. I’ve no interest in switching.

1 Like

There is some serious distortion in what you’ve quoted and I’d prefer you not chop up my sentences to put words in my mouth. This is slander.

This is the sentence from which you took that quote. Can you see how what I said did not concern all reasons for belief the way the sentence fragment you selected does?


This statement overlooks the fact that the Big Bang Theory, like Darwin’s a scientific theory. The reason why many scientists thought then that
universe did not have a beginning was because they accepted the view of the pagan philosophers that the universe is eternal. On the other hand an eternal universe means that it is infinite and self-created which conflicts with the Christian view of God…

Therefore the conflict was not between science and theology, but between philosophy and theology. Science in the form of the Big Bang seems to “prove” that theology was right. The universe did have a beginning.

Whether God is the Source of the Beginning or not, science cannot technically say, However as a theologian I would say that “God,” even if you call God by a different name, is by definition the Source of the universe.

If it were demonstrated that humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, then evolution as we know it would be seriously compromised. If it were demonstrated that the universe were eternal, God as we know God through Christianity would be seriously compromised.

Christians live by faith and not by sight or certainty. That means that our faith can be falsified, even though we do not think that it will be. Our faith is in God and not in our theology.

Okay, so “the best” reasons for belief have no strong rational justification, in your opinion. My point remains, however. I was merely contrasting feelingness with objectivity and emphasizing the difference, not trying to misquote you, and hardly slander.

It seems you were indicating that the justification for Maggie’s finding God (or being found of God) were because of feelings and not rational. No, there was objective and rational justification, empirical facts and manifest meaning. It is certainly understandable that you would want to emphasize feelings, though, making them “the best reasons”, and minimizing intellect, making it easier to justify unbelief.

The best reasons for belief are rational, though, because feelings are so ephemeral and easily manipulated, say, by TV evangelists. That is not at all to say that feelings are unimportant, because we are talking about the redemption of an individual’s relationship and love for the personal and fatherly Almighty God – it is not just a head trip. Maggie received that gift, an eternally significant one to be desired and sought after.

Dale, I respect you.

. I, myself, while I find Maggie inspiring, don’t find her argument convincing. There is way too much in the natural world that counterbalances and seems to explain it to me.

I mentioned once how I really struggled with a prof who asked me to question things–and told my dad, a very godly man, that I thought there were enough examples of miracles in the world to cement belief in God. He said, “No, that’s not the case. For some reason, God chooses to work in ways that are not provable as a miracle. When I was in college, I really struggled on how to base my belief in God. Eventually, I decided, like Kirkegaard, to make a leap of faith.” I related that to my skeptic prof, and he was stunned. He expressed respect for my dad.

There was a Harvard study that reviewed how many of us need (and don’t need) logic to come to a point of view. It’s interesting how we are made. I honestly feel the need to question things a lot. It’s not because I don’t want God to exist–rather, I know I am biased in that favor, and I try to be as detached and honest as I can. I fail in that a lot–and am learning quite a bit.

It seems that God knows exactly where we need to come from, and knows how much we struggle. Thank goodness! He’s a lot easier on people than I am

Thanks for the discussion.


You don’t think winning five separate lotteries in a day and in the order that the tickets were bought isn’t a pretty good clue that something is rigged? I think it illustrates the individuality of our relationships with God. I’m quite certain that there is something miraculous, as your dad said, that happens in a life, subtle or stark, that brings a person to God.

Hearts don’t change due to reasoning alone, and stony ones don’t soften themselves. They can be prepared, however, by reason and circumstance. It was God’s providence – timing and placing, that put Lydia and Paul in Philippi where and when they were. Likewise Maggie in her desperation, but there was no one distinct miracle (or set of them :slightly_smiling_face:) in Lydia’s life.

Changed hearts can stagnate or continue to grow (in a nonliteral healthy sense :slightly_smiling_face:), I think. Bonhoeffer’s hermeneutic comes to mind.

Yes and no. Yes, make sure it wasn’t rigged by actual person s because people can and sometimes do behave badly. But no, not by a supernatural agent. Even if you believe in such beings, what would be the motivation? Do you think God engages in brinksmanship regarding His hiddenness? Does he look for little ways to convince each one of His special children so as not to broadcast it to the deficient ones? None of that seems appealing or likely to me.

I think if there is anything like salvation it comes from engaging life more with your heart and less with your head. Ideally we’d use both, but as a culture we put reason on a pedestal and distrust feeling and intuition - not for the better. The trouble with reason is that we’re really bad at not acting for narrow, self serving ways. Those who tell themselves it is all a matter of rationality are probably adrift where salvation is concerned no matter how hard they work to chart an endgame to paradise.


Make that singular.


Was there any in Lydia’s case? (Or mine.)

The heavens declare the glory of God,
    and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
    and night to night reveals knowledge.

Psalm 19:1-2

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:20

Nothing is hidden except maybe by motivated reasoning?

No charting required, just the humble acceptance of a gift with love.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.