Creationism vs. The Big Bang

[TampaChristian]

For the sake of time I'll assume everyone knows what creationism is but recently I've hit a point in my life when science is starting to mess with my faith but the main counter argument I keep having with myself is how we could be here without a God. As you all know The Big Bang theory states that the universe started out has a single small molecule that rapidly expanded into the universe we have today. Other theories suggest that our universe was created through the collision of 2 other universes, but this doesn't explain the origin on where those universes would have came from. The part science can never prove my faith wrong in is how something came from nothing. And as Einstein said, there was never a time for a god to exist before the universe. I believe in some sort of physics a small particle of matter could expand rapidly, but that defies the scientific law saying energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What sends me crazy is the explanation of how the particle was formed by energy that was roaming around in a place outside of space and our universe. Scientist claim that at a time like this, normal scientific laws wouldn't apply to the current ones that they say were created as the universe was. But doesn't that contradict Einstein's saying that there was never a time for a god to exist? To end this I'll just say that I don't believe that the big bang occurred as science described it and that what we know to be us and everything our telescopes can see today had to have been created by a supernatural being.

Well this topic has been bugging me the past few days which led me do a lot of research but no answer could really logically answer that the universe being created was a random event, so I figured I just get the opinions of my friends from my same faith. Let me know what you think on the subject.

 

[Armoured]

For the sake of time I'll assume everyone knows what creationism is but recently I've hit a point in my life when science is starting to mess with my faith but the main counter argument I keep having with myself is how we could be here without a God. As you all know The Big Bang theory states that the universe started out has a single small molecule that rapidly expanded into the universe we have today. Other theories suggest that our universe was created through the collision of 2 other universes, but this doesn't explain the origin on where those universes would have came from. The part science can never prove my faith wrong in is how something came from nothing. And as Einstein said, there was never a time for a god to exist before the universe. I believe in some sort of physics a small particle of matter could expand rapidly, but that defies the scientific law saying energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What sends me crazy is the explanation of how the particle was formed by energy that was roaming around in a place outside of space and our universe. Scientist claim that at a time like this, normal scientific laws wouldn't apply to the current ones that they say were created as the universe was. But doesn't that contradict Einstein's saying that there was never a time for a god to exist? To end this I'll just say that I don't believe that the big bang occurred as science described it and that what we know to be us and everything our telescopes can see today had to have been created by a supernatural being.

Well this topic has been bugging me the past few days which led me do a lot of research but no answer could really logically answer that the universe being created was a random event, so I figured I just get the opinions of my friends from my same faith. Let me know what you think on the subject.

We have a whole forum for discussions about creationism, I suggest you repost this in this subforum http://www.christianforums.com/f70/ and welcome to CF

 

[TampaChristian]

Thanks for the help

 

[juvenissun]

Well this topic has been bugging me the past few days which led me do a lot of research but no answer could really logically answer that the universe being created was a random event, so I figured I just get the opinions of my friends from my same faith. Let me know what you think on the subject.

Big Bang is a chapter in the book of Creationism. Somehow the energy/material involved in the Big Bang has to be created. Furthermore, everything science knows involves time. But time also needs to be created.

Don't worry about the details of Big Bang. It is only a fun game played by scientists.

 

[Paradoxum]

For the sake of time I'll assume everyone knows what creationism is but recently I've hit a point in my life when science is starting to mess with my faith but the main counter argument I keep having with myself is how we could be here without a God.

Well the universe would exist for it's own reasons, without God.

Why does God exist?

As you all know The Big Bang theory states that the universe started out has a single small molecule that rapidly expanded into the universe we have today.

Well, it wasn't a small molecule.

Other theories suggest that our universe was created through the collision of 2 other universes, but this doesn't explain the origin on where those universes would have came from. The part science can never prove my faith wrong in is how something came from nothing.

Maybe the universe didn't come into existence. That doesn't mean it's eternal.

And as Einstein said, there was never a time for a god to exist before the universe. I believe in some sort of physics a small particle of matter could expand rapidly, but that defies the scientific law saying energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Except that experts on the subject seem to say it's possible, so perhaps they understand the scientific laws better than you.

Also, laws are just based on observation. It doesn't mean they HAVE to be true all the time.

What sends me crazy is the explanation of how the particle was formed by energy that was roaming around in a place outside of space and our universe. Scientist claim that at a time like this, normal scientific laws wouldn't apply to the current ones that they say were created as the universe was. But doesn't that contradict Einstein's saying that there was never a time for a god to exist?

You know not all people would claim that there was energy roaming around before the Big Bang? Also, it wouldn't matter if they disagreed with Einstein... Einstein wasn't omniscient.

To end this I'll just say that I don't believe that the big bang occurred as science described it and that what we know to be us and everything our telescopes can see today had to have been created by a supernatural being.

Why don't think think the Big Bang happened like science says? There's no need for a God. It's easily possible that the universe could have a purely physical origin.

Well this topic has been bugging me the past few days which led me do a lot of research but no answer could really logically answer that the universe being created was a random event, so I figured I just get the opinions of my friends from my same faith. Let me know what you think on the subject.

What is you're issue with the universe existing, by the Big Bang, without God? I don't get what your problem is.

 

[Paradoxum]

Big Bang is a chapter in the book of Creationism. Somehow the energy/material involved in the Big Bang has to be created. Furthermore, everything science knows involves time. But time also needs to be created.

Like heliocentrism is a chapter in the book of geocentricism?

Why do you think the Big Bang had to be created? I think it's totally possible that the universe never didn't exist.

Don't worry about the details of Big Bang. It is only a fun game played by scientists.

And the Earth doesn't really go round the Sun either.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The problem arise from the initial mental set up: that of explosion from a finite single point.

You can also get a fully finely tuned universe by the contraction of an infinite. This method is orders of magnitude more predictive than the Big Bang model.

 

[juvenissun]

Like heliocentrism is a chapter in the book of geocentricism?

Why do you think the Big Bang had to be created? I think it's totally possible that the universe never didn't exist.



And the Earth doesn't really go round the Sun either.

Don't waste your time here. Think and say something which will benefit yourself.

 

[CabVet]

The problem arise from the initial mental set up: that of explosion from a finite single point.

You can also get a fully finely tuned universe by the contraction of an infinite. This method is orders of magnitude more predictive than the Big Bang model.

Your statement of "explosion from a finite single point" makes it absolutely clear that you have no idea what the Big Bang model is or states.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Your statement of "explosion from a finite single point" makes it absolutely clear that you have no idea what the Big Bang model is or states.

Oh for heaven sake: The inflation of space time within a finite, mono centric singularity.

Does the BBT postulate that the singularity was of infinite mass, or there was more than one of them? Or that it was not a radial expansion?

 

[CheerfulGiving]

Oh, it really is a good question! There has to be SOMETHING that exists, not caused by anything, just existing without anything to 'make' it. IT could be God, it could be matter, or it could be conscious awareness.

I think you'll like this from ExpectationMagic.com:
Matter did not ‘big bang’ into being and come to life like Frosty the Snowman.

It’s unrealistic to assume physical matter spontaneously existed in otherwise empty space.

But we know consciousness exists, because we are experiencing conscious awareness right now, in this moment. Consciousness exists and dreams of a person in a spectacular physical world.

If consciousness is what spontaneously started existing, it means life really is like a dream. Expectation can influence events in dreams.

So... we may think God is what magically existed, or materialists might think matter is what magically existed.. something sure did! And does.

 

[TasteForTruth]

For the sake of time I'll assume everyone knows what creationism is but recently I've hit a point in my life when science is starting to mess with my faith but the main counter argument I keep having with myself is how we could be here without a God. As you all know The Big Bang theory states that the universe started out has a single small molecule that rapidly expanded into the universe we have today. Other theories suggest that our universe was created through the collision of 2 other universes, but this doesn't explain the origin on where those universes would have came from. The part science can never prove my faith wrong in is how something came from nothing. And as Einstein said, there was never a time for a god to exist before the universe. I believe in some sort of physics a small particle of matter could expand rapidly, but that defies the scientific law saying energy cannot be created nor destroyed. What sends me crazy is the explanation of how the particle was formed by energy that was roaming around in a place outside of space and our universe. Scientist claim that at a time like this, normal scientific laws wouldn't apply to the current ones that they say were created as the universe was. But doesn't that contradict Einstein's saying that there was never a time for a god to exist? To end this I'll just say that I don't believe that the big bang occurred as science described it and that what we know to be us and everything our telescopes can see today had to have been created by a supernatural being.

Well this topic has been bugging me the past few days which led me do a lot of research but no answer could really logically answer that the universe being created was a random event, so I figured I just get the opinions of my friends from my same faith. Let me know what you think on the subject.

I'm not a Catholic, and CF doesn't consider me a Christian in spite of my claims to Christianity, so I hope you don't mind if I still count myself as one of "your faith."

Elements are not sentient. Without a Creator (I prefer "Programmer"), how does any combination of elements inherently understand what to do to preserve and sustain and propagate itself?

It is wholly irrational to conclude that life can exist by chance. Don't get hung up on the answers God has not promised to reveal at this time. We all have a promise from God that all these things will be explained at a future time—when our mortal test has concluded. Doubt is nothing more than lack of information. Making decisions on the basis of information we don't have is foolish. Better to make decisions on the basis of information we actually possess. No?

 

[TasteForTruth]

The server is goofing up and I can't edit my last post, but I wanted to make clear that, relative to the origin of the Universe, this is one of those areas where absolute clarity is forthcoming. So, we should embrace all the light that science can shed on the beginnings of our universe, but we should not hold God to account for the information science cannot yet provide.

 

[True Scotsman]

Matter did not ‘big bang’ into being and come to life like Frosty the Snowman.

Wow, that is a straw man of mega proportions. What scientist ever claimed such a thing happened.

There is a fatal flaw in your theory. It contradicts reality. We know that existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness. This is not in question. It is directly observable.

consciousness presupposes existence and the objects of consciousness don't conform to the subject of consciousness, so the universe was not created by a consciousness. It obtains independent of anyone's consciousness.

 

[CheerfulGiving]

Wow, that is a straw man of mega proportions. What scientist ever claimed such a thing happened.

There is a fatal flaw in your theory. It contradicts reality. We know that existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness. This is not in question. It is directly observable.

consciousness presupposes existence and the objects of consciousness don't conform to the subject of consciousness, so the universe was not created by a consciousness. It obtains independent of anyone's consciousness.

Thanks for continuing the conversation. : )

We open our hearts and minds to receive insights you'll share.

What is the 'existence' that has primacy over consciousness? Descartes observed, "I think, therefore I am." Something is having a conscious experience right now, and that's all I really know.

If I dream that I am a bunny rabbit, it will seem that I am only able to have a conscious experience because of the central nervous system in my furry bunny body. But there really is no bunny; it's a dream.

The body is just another part of the dream! The person whom I am being is part of the dream.

If I am fooled into believing the dream is real, I will believe I am a bunny. But when I have a lucid moment I remember my true self, and I am playing in a world of form.

"The dreamer is not the person. The person is part of the dream." (Eckhart Tolle)

Scientific (empirical) observation is like taking a dream too seriously. Wake up and remember! And I welcome you home.

 

[Colter]

The created universe expands and contracts, it is much older than currently understood.

 

[True Scotsman]

Thanks for continuing the conversation. : )

We open our hearts and minds to receive insights you'll share.

What is the 'existence' that has primacy over consciousness? Descartes observed, "I think, therefore I am." Something is having a conscious experience right now, and that's all I really know.

If I dream that I am a bunny rabbit, it will seem that I am only able to have a conscious experience because of the central nervous system in my furry bunny body. But there really is no bunny; it's a dream.

The body is just another part of the dream! The person whom I am being is part of the dream.

If I am fooled into believing the dream is real, I will believe I am a bunny. But when I have a lucid moment I remember my true self, and I am playing in a world of form.

"The dreamer is not the person. The person is part of the dream." (Eckhart Tolle)

Scientific (empirical) observation is like taking a dream too seriously. Wake up and remember! And I welcome you home.

Thank you. I will be happy to explain the axiom of "existence" and why it has primacy over consciousness. But first there is the matter of your representation of the Big Bang. Will you acknowledge that "Matter did not ‘big bang’ into being and come to life like Frosty the Snowman" is a straw man. If you won't do this then provide a link or a name of a scientist who has said that matter did "big bang into existence and then come to life like Frosty the Snowman".

 

[CheerfulGiving]

Materialists assume that matter somehow started existing and also developed conscious awareness. That is far-fetched.

I am challenging you to consider the possibility that some entity(s) of conscious awareness is what spontaneously exists. Which is fundamental -- conscious awareness, or matter?

Maybe matter somehow sprang into existence and became conscious, but I don't think so. Maybe this conscious being that I AM is dreaming up a spectacular world of material form.

 

[True Scotsman]

Materialists assume that matter somehow started existing and also developed conscious awareness. That is far-fetched.

I am challenging you to consider the possibility that some entity(s) of conscious awareness is what spontaneously exists. Which is fundamental -- conscious awareness, or matter?

Maybe matter somehow sprang into existence and became conscious, but I don't think so. Maybe this conscious being that I AM is dreaming up a spectacular world of material form.

You're just going to ignore the fact that you created a blatant straw man argument as if It never happened and I never pointed it out to you. Sadly it's what I've come to expect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Big Bang is a chapter in the book of Creationism. Somehow the energy/material involved in the Big Bang has to be created.

Using the same reasoning, logically the deity that you posit as the creator, has to be created as well.

You may begin your special pleading now.