God’s Not Dead, Chapter 4 – The Implications of the Big Bang (pt42)
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BIG BANG
Many in the skeptical community would try to downplay the notion of a definite beginning because of the religious implications.
This is ridiculous, the author wants to make it seem that everyone in the skeptic/atheist community are completely against the idea of god. Ardently opposed to the slightest implication that a god could exist. This is not true. This is not the position of a skeptic. A skeptic simply holds back their confidence in a claim until it is proven beyond doubt. Remember the gumball analogy? Holding out your decision doesn’t automatically make you a contrarian.
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington would echo this same reluctance: “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…I should like to find a genuine loophole.”
Please note that Eddington didn’t say ‘Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me…so I refuse to believe it is true.” Also, strangely enough he begins his statement ensuring that the reader understands he is talking philosophically, not scientifically.
Trying to conceive of what could have existed before the beginning or caused the beginning is mind-bending. However, the logic of connecting the evidence for a beginning of the universe to a Creator is too challenging to ignore.
I don’t think this came out the way the author meant it to. First and foremost the author says thinking about before the beginning is “mind-bending” but continually claims that he knows what was there before and during the proposed creation event. As for the second sentence I think it was supposed to mean that connecting the evidence we have with a supernatural creator is too good to ignore.