Wondering if this makes sense

[Constantine I]

I've been thinking about the Big Bang lately and I reached a conclusion.
If the Big Bang did transpire, it would be impossible for it to happen without a God. Everything in nature that has ever been done has had a reason behind it, right? The reason that rock fell was because the ground shook and it misplaced the surface of the mountain causing it to fall. Or the reason that tea is cooking is because I was thirsty and warmed it up. Everything also has a mechanical reason behind it. The reason that rock fell was because when the tectonic plates collided they shook the ground and the force of gravity made the rock fall. So there is a normal reason for everything and a mechanical reasoning.

The Big Bang Theory only provides a mechanical reason. Atoms of infinite mass collided in a point of infinite space (I believe so) making it infinitely larger of a reaction than normal. However their is no normal reason. Why did a bunch of atoms randomly form and collide together? What could possibly prompt them to do so? If there was nothing before the universe, then there was nothing that could prompt the Big Bang to happen. That is why the Big Bang requires a God, and it is foolish and coincidental of scientists to simply "ignore" the flaws.


Does this make any sense or am I crazy? Seems like no one else has noticed this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

sounds pretty logical to me.

 

[gzt]

The originator of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest and he had much the same thought.

 

[Constantine I]

Good to know I'm not crazy lol

 

[truefiction1]

Makes sense to me too.

 

[Antony in Tx]

Science attempts to describe what and how of what is observed in nature. It does not try to answer why. Good scientists who are Christians understand this and see God's hand in everything they are looking at. Atheist scientists, who may also be good at science but completely wrong when it comes to God, say that there is no "why" and that life is essentially meaningless. It's not about science, it's about their lack of faith and understanding of God. The fact that a large number of scientists are atheists does not invalidate their observations, only their conclusions about "why".

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

As always, Antony----

Science attempts to describe what and how of what is observed in nature. It does not try to answer why. Good scientists who are Christians understand this and see God's hand in everything they are looking at. Atheist scientists, who may also be good at science but completely wrong when it comes to God, say that there is no "why" and that life is essentially meaningless. It's not about science, it's about their lack of faith and understanding of God. The fact that a large number of scientists are atheists does not invalidate their observations, only their conclusions about "why".

 

[buzuxi02]

I've mentioned this once before. If the big bang theory is legitimate, there would have been no big bang as the explosion occured in a vacuum. But there would have been a large flash of light.... And God said Let their be Light.


P.S.- Nice to see your still hanging around and stil posting Gurney!

 

[rusmeister]

Uh, guys, "their" is a possessive pronoun, like "my" or "your", "his" or "our".

"There" is an adverb that answers the question "Where?". With the verb "to be", ("There is"), it speaks of the existence of something.

"They're" is the contracted form of "They are".

If you don't care whether your ideas appear intelligent to others or not, please ignore this message.

(Yes, I make dumb typos from time to time, though most often it is virtual keyboard betrayal coupled with a lack of desire to carefully proofread.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm a stickler for English, but the older I get and when I'm tired, oh boy, I can do some crazy stupid things with grammar and spelling! Don't be too hardcore on this stuff, Rus. Easy now. Easy!

Uh, guys, "their" is a possessive pronoun, like "my" or "your", "his" or "our".

"There" is an adverb that answers the question "Where?". With the verb "to be", ("There is"), it speaks of the existence of something.

"They're" is the contracted form of "They are".

If you don't care whether your ideas appear intelligent to others or not, please ignore this message.

(Yes, I make dumb typos from time to time, though most often it is virtual keyboard betrayal coupled with a lack of desire to carefully proofread.)

 

[Anhelyna]

I'm like Rus - a bit fussy about some grammar particularly the their/there/they're type of thing.

I'm trying to help someone with his spoken English [ he's attended several intensive language courses - some expensive ones where it was virtually one-to-one] and I find it hard going trying to get some things into his head.

When we are working together on Skype I make masses of notes of things which have to be cleared up - and I then spend about an hour the next day explaining what's wrong and why , and how it should have been said , by email.

Yet I can still get this sort of thing [ when he does actually answer an e-mail ] back

I am Sorry. I had problem with iternet. I don't wont to abset you. I would like to curry on. Do you mined.

When you get something like that you cannot let it go !

Come on guys - we can all make mistakes / typos ,particularly when tired, but let's get some decent basic grammar in daily use - it does make meanings crystal clear.

 

[Antony in Tx]

.