Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Do Many Theists Not Like The Big Bang?

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:03:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I notice some theists, namely creationists, speak of the Big Bang as if it's atheistic and contradictory to theism. Why is this? Not only was the big bang first theorized be a theist, when scientists started believing in it, it was considered a step towards theism. Beforehand, many scientists believed the universe had always existed. If it had always existed, this would be contrary to the usual theistic view that it was created by God at some point in time. Thus the eternal universe theory was an atheistic argument. When the Big Bang theory came along, this offered serious confrontation to the view that it had always existed and thus gave support to the theistic view that it began at one point.

So why are some theists so opposed to it? It's not anti-theistic. While it's by no means a proof of theism, it's more in favor of it than against it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If atheists can hold a position, it feels tainted or icky.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:49:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 6:03:19 PM, phantom wrote:
I notice some theists, namely creationists, speak of the Big Bang as if it's atheistic and contradictory to theism. Why is this? Not only was the big bang first theorized be a theist, when scientists started believing in it, it was considered a step towards theism. Beforehand, many scientists believed the universe had always existed. If it had always existed, this would be contrary to the usual theistic view that it was created by God at some point in time. Thus the eternal universe theory was an atheistic argument. When the Big Bang theory came along, this offered serious confrontation to the view that it had always existed and thus gave support to the theistic view that it began at one point.

So why are some theists so opposed to it? It's not anti-theistic. While it's by no means a proof of theism, it's more in favor of it than against it.

Ironically enough, many non-theists rejected the BBT at first because of it's alleged theistic implications. See: Fred Hoyle.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 7:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most Christians believe in the big bang, in fact it's written in 2 Peter 3:10...

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,..."

That's a big bang, and you better get ready for it.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 8:04:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Big Bang Theory would suggest that the age of the universe is slightly older than the 10,000 year age suggested by the Young Earth Creationist interpretation of the Bible (by a few billion years), therefor it is atheistic and based on assumptions intended to disprove God's existence.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 9:52:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:12:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 10:00:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
It isn't the Big Bang. It's the 13 billion years ago part.

Makes sense but still, better than eternity right?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:20:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's a good question. I suspect it's because some theists look at the big bang as an explanation of the universe rather than something that needs to be explained. So they think either God created the universe, or the big bang created the universe, but not both. It seems to me they just haven't thought the whole thing through.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 11:36:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 6:49:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2013 6:03:19 PM, phantom wrote:
I notice some theists, namely creationists, speak of the Big Bang as if it's atheistic and contradictory to theism. Why is this? Not only was the big bang first theorized be a theist, when scientists started believing in it, it was considered a step towards theism. Beforehand, many scientists believed the universe had always existed. If it had always existed, this would be contrary to the usual theistic view that it was created by God at some point in time. Thus the eternal universe theory was an atheistic argument. When the Big Bang theory came along, this offered serious confrontation to the view that it had always existed and thus gave support to the theistic view that it began at one point.

So why are some theists so opposed to it? It's not anti-theistic. While it's by no means a proof of theism, it's more in favor of it than against it.

Ironically enough, many non-theists rejected the BBT at first because of it's alleged theistic implications. See: Fred Hoyle.

That's a good point, when the BBT 1st came out it was a bomb shell for the scientific & philosophical communities. It changed the beliefs that science & philosophy swore by for thousands of years.

The sentiment was best summed up by Robert Jastrow -
The first chairman of NASA"s Lunar Exploration Committee, & Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA, & Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.

There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. " This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

It strengthened the cosmological argument.
& in my opinion, it fits with Genesis, especially if you read it in the original (i.e. not translated).
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
KeithKroeger91
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:35:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 6:03:19 PM, phantom wrote:
I notice some theists, namely creationists, speak of the Big Bang as if it's atheistic and contradictory to theism. Why is this? Not only was the big bang first theorized be a theist, when scientists started believing in it, it was considered a step towards theism. Beforehand, many scientists believed the universe had always existed. If it had always existed, this would be contrary to the usual theistic view that it was created by God at some point in time. Thus the eternal universe theory was an atheistic argument. When the Big Bang theory came along, this offered serious confrontation to the view that it had always existed and thus gave support to the theistic view that it began at one point.

So why are some theists so opposed to it? It's not anti-theistic. While it's by no means a proof of theism, it's more in favor of it than against it.

I never had a problem with the big bang and never will.
I win ;D
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:37:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have no idea why a theist would not like the big bang theory. Fr. Georges Lemaitre clearly saw no issue with it, so I see no reason to either.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 6:20:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 10:12:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/20/2013 10:00:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
It isn't the Big Bang. It's the 13 billion years ago part.

Makes sense but still, better than eternity right?

Just tell them that it's "symbolic." The Big Bang Theory is a parable.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:26:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 10:00:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
It isn't the Big Bang. It's the 13 billion years ago part.

Bingo, I think it comes down to a literal six days thing with Creationists. Even on that basis, the objection to Big Bang theory is misplaced, there is still a remarkable correspondence between the Christian vision and the vision of Big Bang theory as it relates to a literal six day creation of the Universe, you only need to recognize that the Bible is speaking from the relative frame of reference of God as creator, and compare it to the science of Big Bang theory.

Here is how the currently accepted cosmological theory of time, derived from the General Theory of Relativity, applies to this six days objection "literally".

According to the General Theory of Relativity space and time are not absolute and uniform; they are relative to a frame of reference. Generally accepted cosmological theory tells us that the time/space continuum has been expanding since the creation of the universe in what we call the "Big Bang". What this means is that the temporal frame of reference of "the beginning" is dramatically different from our temporal frame of reference. From the beginning frame of reference, which would be a creator God"s frame of reference, time has expanded exponentially since the beginning; this relationship would be inverted from our frame of reference.

The General Theory provides a mathematical framework that allows us to quantify the expansion of the space/time continuum relative to our frame of reference; it tells us that each time the universe doubled in time and space, the perception of time is halved from our frame of reference.

Therefore, current Big bang scientific theory states that the initial moment when the relationship we refer to with the word "time" began, would have occurred when the dynamics of heat and expansion caused matter to form, that moment is commonly referred to as "quark confinement". The General Theory calculates the initial ratio of time between our frame of reference and the frame of reference of the beginning, to be equal to the ratio between the temperature of quark confinement (10.9 times 10 to the twelfth power Kelvin) to the temperature of the universe today (2.73 degrees Kelvin). Remember that since the beginning, time is expanding exponentially from the beginning frame of reference, and as time proceeds it is contracting exponentially from our frame of reference. Utilizing the algorithmic time calculations of the General Theory we can calculate that a single twenty four hour day, from the frame of reference of the beginning, would have expanded in such a way that it would be measured as roughly eight billion years from today"s frame of reference. A second twenty four hour day would be measured as roughly four billion years, a third as two billion years, a fourth as one billion, a fifth as a half billion, and a sixth as a quarter billion years.

So, from the frame of reference of the beginning, six twenty four hour days, would have expanded in such a way that, from our frame of reference, it would be measured as roughly fifteen and three quarter billion years, roughly the age of the universe as estimated by current Big Bang scientific theory.

So there you go, Big Bang theory does indeed say that the Universe was created in six literal days.

I"m no literalist or creationist by any stretch, and while the Bible is not a science textbook, there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what modern science tells us and what the Bible tells us about the creation of physical reality as it pertains to the question of six days versus fifteen plus billion years. If you examine the events that Genesis says occurred on each of these six literal days, there is a further remarkable correspondence that supports this idea that Genesis and Big bang theory are essentially two versions of one and the same story even further. It is very hard to see this remarkable correspondence between modern science and the Genesis creation narrative as coincidence only.

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am trying to paraphrase in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God", I highly recommend it if you are interested in a more detailed review of this idea)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:02:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 7:33:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Most Christians believe in the big bang, in fact it's written in 2 Peter 3:10...

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,..."

That's a big bang, and you better get ready for it.

I think that you are saying that the Genesis concept of time put forth the idea of time as a meaningful flow of events leading to the fulfillment of a purpose.

I will further argue that Big Bang theory directly resulted from the Genesis conception of time, as something that had a beginning, middle, and end. The Genesis conception of time was a completely new conception of time in the history of the word; it was a profound break with the previous conceptions of time known to the world. In the Christian view of time the universe has existence in time with a beginning, middle, and an end, and it is progressing in the form of unfolding of the properties of the universe that were inherent in the structure from the beginning.. To Christians, the entire universe, from the beginning of time to the present (and beyond) represents a single unfolding pattern operating and demonstrating God"s plan. At the time the Genesis narrative appeared the classical western philosophy was the static Greek model of time, one of endlessly recurring cycles. The Greeks believed Socrates drank the hemlock at exactly the same moment in history each time around. The classical eastern philosophies had come close to a complete negation of time with their "endless repetitions of the wheel of existence".

Nothing is more fundamental to the way we think than our conception of time, outside of the Jewish world time was seen as circular and never ending throughout the ancient world. Genesis embodies a new conception of time that was and is embraced throughout the modern world today. The embracing of this dramatic new concept of time is what drove progress to occur in all of the realms of knowledge in all cultures. It gave the world a dramatically different point of view of time and it implicitly unleashed the possibility of progress that became the engine of scientific progress which eventually resulted in the Big Bang theory.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:11:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 6:20:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/20/2013 10:12:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 1/20/2013 10:00:49 PM, drafterman wrote:
It isn't the Big Bang. It's the 13 billion years ago part.

Makes sense but still, better than eternity right?

Just tell them that it's "symbolic." The Big Bang Theory is a parable.

Better yet, allow them to recognize that Genesis and Big bang theory are both cosmogonic narratives, and essentially they both say the same thing.

Genesis 1 said it in only 31 sentences, it's Big bang theory in a nutshell, we might also point out that Genesis included a detailed introduction to the theory of evolution in those 31 sentences too....but that might just make them spontaneously combust or something.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 9:39:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 8:26:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am trying to paraphrase in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God", I highly recommend it if you are interested in a more detailed review of this idea)

Gerald Schroeder isn't just a renowned physicist by the way, he's also an Orthodox Jew, so it should be recognized that it's his book that creationist Christians stole and then misinterpreted in a "literal" fashion, which is preposterous to the manner in which thier sacred narratives were written, and the manner in which they are and should be interpreted.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:44:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 11:36:29 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 1/20/2013 6:49:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2013 6:03:19 PM, phantom wrote:
I notice some theists, namely creationists, speak of the Big Bang as if it's atheistic and contradictory to theism. Why is this? Not only was the big bang first theorized be a theist, when scientists started believing in it, it was considered a step towards theism. Beforehand, many scientists believed the universe had always existed. If it had always existed, this would be contrary to the usual theistic view that it was created by God at some point in time. Thus the eternal universe theory was an atheistic argument. When the Big Bang theory came along, this offered serious confrontation to the view that it had always existed and thus gave support to the theistic view that it began at one point.

So why are some theists so opposed to it? It's not anti-theistic. While it's by no means a proof of theism, it's more in favor of it than against it.

Ironically enough, many non-theists rejected the BBT at first because of it's alleged theistic implications. See: Fred Hoyle.

That's a good point, when the BBT 1st came out it was a bomb shell for the scientific & philosophical communities. It changed the beliefs that science & philosophy swore by for thousands of years.

The sentiment was best summed up by Robert Jastrow -
The first chairman of NASA"s Lunar Exploration Committee, & Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA, & Founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.

There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. " This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


It strengthened the cosmological argument.
& in my opinion, it fits with Genesis, especially if you read it in the original (i.e. not translated).

I agree - there cannot be a scientific explanation (theory) for the presence of the universe - all theories in physics take it as axiomatic that physical quantities already exist, the only explanation must - obviously - be a non-scientrific one - that is a non-material explanation.

This is blindingly obvious when you ponder it that I do not see why it is controversial.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:47:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:35:23 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
At 1/20/2013 6:03:19 PM, phantom wrote:
I notice some theists, namely creationists, speak of the Big Bang as if it's atheistic and contradictory to theism. Why is this? Not only was the big bang first theorized be a theist, when scientists started believing in it, it was considered a step towards theism. Beforehand, many scientists believed the universe had always existed. If it had always existed, this would be contrary to the usual theistic view that it was created by God at some point in time. Thus the eternal universe theory was an atheistic argument. When the Big Bang theory came along, this offered serious confrontation to the view that it had always existed and thus gave support to the theistic view that it began at one point.

So why are some theists so opposed to it? It's not anti-theistic. While it's by no means a proof of theism, it's more in favor of it than against it.

I never had a problem with the big bang and never will.

The "Big Bang" is simply a theory - predicated on the presence of already existing matter, energy and fields - all the Big Bang explains is how this was transformed from one state into another.

It does not and does not claim to, explain the presence of any initial state, that is the problem - the assumption by the naive that it explains the presence of the universe - it doesn't and never did - it needs to assume the preexistence of something - else there could be no theory.

Harry.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:02:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 9:39:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:26:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am trying to paraphrase in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God", I highly recommend it if you are interested in a more detailed review of this idea)

Gerald Schroeder isn't just a renowned physicist by the way, he's also an Orthodox Jew, so it should be recognized that it's his book that creationist Christians stole and then misinterpreted in a "literal" fashion, which is preposterous to the manner in which their sacred narratives were written, and the manner in which they are and should be interpreted.

As soon as I started reading, I recognized it as his.

He's a real incredible person
PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences from MIT. He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Etc.

He was also influential in Anthony Flews' "conversion" to deism, based on Teleological arguments.

BTW He has at least 4 books that I know of:

Genesis and the Big Bang (1990), ISBN 0-553-35413-2

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, (1997), ISBN 0-7679-0303-X

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, (2002), ISBN 0-7432-0325-9.

God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along, (2009), ISBN 978-0-06-171015-5.

Believe it or not he's actually quite accessible, I've emailed him a couple of times, & he responds rather quickly, (but briefly).
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:47:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:47:51 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
The "Big Bang" is simply a theory - predicated on the presence of already existing matter, energy and fields - all the Big Bang explains is how this was transformed from one state into another.
All knowledge is predicated on the presence of already existing.

It does not and does not claim to, explain the presence of any initial state, that is the problem - the assumption by the naive that it explains the presence of the universe - it doesn't and never did - it needs to assume the preexistence of something - else there could be no theory.

Harry.
Existence needs no explanation as there is no other alternative to it because it's alternative simply doesn't exist.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:46:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 12:02:42 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 1/21/2013 9:39:28 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:26:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

(This isn"t my analysis btw, I am trying to paraphrase in only a few paragraphs here, the calculations of renowned physicist Gerald Schroeder from his book "The Science of God", I highly recommend it if you are interested in a more detailed review of this idea)

Gerald Schroeder isn't just a renowned physicist by the way, he's also an Orthodox Jew, so it should be recognized that it's his book that creationist Christians stole and then misinterpreted in a "literal" fashion, which is preposterous to the manner in which their sacred narratives were written, and the manner in which they are and should be interpreted.

As soon as I started reading, I recognized it as his.

He's a real incredible person
PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences from MIT. He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Etc.

He was also influential in Anthony Flews' "conversion" to deism, based on Teleological arguments.

BTW He has at least 4 books that I know of:

Genesis and the Big Bang (1990), ISBN 0-553-35413-2

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, (1997), ISBN 0-7679-0303-X

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth, (2002), ISBN 0-7432-0325-9.

God According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along, (2009), ISBN 978-0-06-171015-5.

Believe it or not he's actually quite accessible, I've emailed him a couple of times, & he responds rather quickly, (but briefly).

I've read all four of his books, and you are right, he's incredible...never thought to send an email, now I'm going to have to sit around thinking of something great to say so I can email him.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 3:08:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
BBT is a problem for people who 'know' the answers, instead of striving to learn and understand he true nature of the universe and our place within it and therefore the nature of Gods work. As it is at odds with their knowledge it is then claimed to be atheistic.

This is actually quite sad as in staunchly sticking to their specific and exact Faith, without introspection or self correction, they are denying what is, imo, the biggest, most complete and most beautiful evidence of Gods
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/22/2013 3:08:37 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
BBT is a problem for people who 'know' the answers, instead of striving to learn and understand he true nature of the universe and our place within it and therefore the nature of Gods work. As it is at odds with their knowledge it is then claimed to be atheistic.

This is actually quite sad as in staunchly sticking to their specific and exact Faith, without introspection or self correction, they are denying what is, imo, the biggest, most complete and most beautiful evidence of Gods

I agree, I think the biggest problem with Creationists is that they are not being true to the spirit they think they are defending. Psalms 19 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork". It doesn't go on to say we shouldn't try to understand it, I consider science to be a sacred venture that attempts to explicate the miracle of creation.

The Creationist argument postulates a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and a seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage Big Bang Bang theory could ever do.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,584
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 9:07:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:47:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:47:51 AM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
The "Big Bang" is simply a theory - predicated on the presence of already existing matter, energy and fields - all the Big Bang explains is how this was transformed from one state into another.
All knowledge is predicated on the presence of already existing.

It does not and does not claim to, explain the presence of any initial state, that is the problem - the assumption by the naive that it explains the presence of the universe - it doesn't and never did - it needs to assume the preexistence of something - else there could be no theory.

Harry.
Existence needs no explanation as there is no other alternative to it because it's alternative simply doesn't exist.

This is simply asserting that science cannot explain what is observed - which is what I said in the first place. You're admitting that the universe - reality - does not have a scientific explanation - but that does not lead to the conclusion that therefore there is no explanation.

Harry.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 10:17:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 7:33:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Most Christians believe in the big bang, in fact it's written in 2 Peter 3:10...

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,..."

That's a big bang, and you better get ready for it.

You got to be kidding right?

The big bang represents the creation of the universe not the destruction it.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 6:51:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As one of the few YEC's on here, I'll say that my problem with the big bang isn't so much the big bang itself, but what is done with the concept.

As I told Enji when asked this on another thread, I don't have a pet theory about HOW God created the universe. He may very well have used a big-bang-like mechanism in the creation of the universe, I can't possibly know that. So it isn't the big bang itself, it's the before and after part of the "science", that I question. But again, even though I question the science involved, I have no problem with the actual scientists formulating theories, and employing theoretical and what I frequently call "junk science", in their work. "In their work", being the key part of that sentence.

I can't speak for all YEC's, but for myself, where the problem begins is when that junk science is inappropriately passed off as real science by ideologues, in the media but most importantly, in the public schools. It is used in schools to attempt to indoctrinate generations of kids into an atheistic, humanistic, naturalistic worldview, where God is not necessary because we can explain how things happen naturally, even though when pushed for evidence we really can't explain these things without proposing another supernatural explanation.

An entire universe can appear from a magical singularity that creates itself from nothing. It has magical properties like a near infinite density attained from gravitational forces so strong that they can condense the entire universe into a dot smaller than a period at the end of this sentence. When asked for evidence for all this, we hear the inevitable divine command, "It is predicted thus it is so". I guess the combination of relativity, cosmic expansion, cosmic radiation, maybe a few other things thrown in depending on who you talk to, and a mathematical formula on a chalkboard, "predicts" that the singularity must have created itself out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago.

Even though they can't answer the question, "Where did the singularity come from??", they feel confident enough to go ahead and teach this in schools as the origin of the universe. The singularity is the creator of the universe, and we can't account for how it exists, sounds like a familiar story to me. Don't tell me my beliefs are religious and yours are science. All you did was give God a different name, and take away the rules. That's not science that should be taught in schools, that's ideology and indoctrination disguising itself as science.

Since that can be passed off as science, and we've bought ourselves billions of years to work with, we might as well go one step further and teach that life can create itself from non-life, and one kind of creature can morph into another kind. Intelligent life, complete with emotions, rational thought, morality, etc., can "evolve" from a few amino acids that created themselves from rock drippings. We'll pick out similarities between different kinds of animals, ignore all the major differences, and use that as proof that all life forms are related. If they have similarities then they must be related, right?? So we can formulate a theory and have it "make predictions", that makes it science!!! Really though, it isn't science. It draws upon supernatural events that defy what we see in the everyday world. It takes life to create life, and kinds bring forth after their own kind, those are the real facts, the real observable evidence. We witness those facts every single day of the year, but we should ignore that in favor of the supernatural explanation.

Their supernatural explanation is ok, though, because even though it's the same concept, they don't call it God they can call it "science". Even though all they've done is changed the name from God, to science, they don't have to worry about the "Thou shalt nots", that come with a religious worldview and objective moral standards. Don't tell them their views are religious either, you'll cause them to have a stroke because they believe that their views don't even speak to the God issue, and that they are fully compatible with a belief in God.

Ideologue-in-chief, Eugenie Scott, and her goats at the NCSE are in business with the sole purpose of fighting against a belief in a deity. She has teamed up with the ACLU (anti-christ's lawyer union) to misuse the court system and make sure that the leftist teachings are not challenged in the schools. Even though courts have held that it isn't unconstitutional to teach about God, so long as the school doesn't require it, she uses her bully pulpit and threatens a law suit against the school if she finds out a teacher is doing so.

She will fight to her death to protect their ability to indoctrinate the nation's kids. That's the only hope the leftists ever have of getting their total agenda (yes I said agenda) through. If people believe in God, and hold to a more traditional, religious morality, then things like legalized baby killing, gay marriage, drug legalization, gun control, etc. ad nauseum, will never fly.

Meanwhile, evangelists like Dawkins, Tyson, Harris, etc., are busy winning converts by selling books and preaching at seminars about how people who believe in God are delusional, unintelligent, uneducated, etc. Dawkins even made the comment that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is "wicked". But hey, those worldviews don't come close to resembling a religion, do they?? This is all just the bloviation of one of those silly creationists.

And that's why I don't like the big bang.

"People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one"- Hitler

"Let me control the textbooks and I'll control the state"- Hitler

I think maybe I'm evolving into a radical, right-wing version of a Charleslb-type creature. :)

Inb4 the inevitable, "You disagree so you don't understand the science or the scientific method".
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:32:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You really like demonizing scientists when you haven't the foggiest idea what their work actually is supposed to show.

Since you would consider all astronomers to be junk scientists (at least if they study anything the 6,000 lightyear radius), should we toss that section out of textbooks?

How about the section on black body radiation? Quantum physics and general relativity don't mesh well at a minute level, so shouldn't we throw out the "junk" science of measuring quanta of heat?

How about the doppler effect? You say it is meaningless when it comes to all forms of measurement involving light (i.e. measuring the distance of stars) so why on earth should we teach the doppler effect as used for sound?

How about general relativity itself? You call it "junk science" when applied to the speed of light in our universe, so lets take that out.

Or even better, let's take MATH out of the book because Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that any mathematical system we teach our children will involve some postulate that has not been previously identified.

Please, keep telling us how you would change our textbooks.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2013 7:43:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Medic, can you please explain why you are against the Big Bang Theory (which isn't to be confused with your strawman of the Big Bang Theory)?