God and the Big Bang -- what is the evidence for a moment of creation?

[Radrook]

The video isn't intended as an effort to convert atheists. It is meant as a way to encourage fellow Christians and other theists. It involves how the Big Bang does not in any way contradict the concept of an intelligent designer of the universe. All members including atheists are free to discuss and debate it of course.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I've been saying what you wrote in your post for years. The "Big Bang" (an inaccurate and dismissive term) does not in the least contradict God's involvement in the beginning of the Universe.

It does get in the way of Young Earth Creationism, but that's another discussion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've been saying what you wrote in your post for years. The "Big Bang" (an inaccurate and dismissive term) does not in the least contradict God's involvement in the beginning of the Universe.

It does get in the way of Young Earth Creationism, but that's another discussion.

Actually I think Young Earth Creationists could live with the Big Bang if they chose to. Just say it happened when they say it all happened. I'm not clear on the exact date but there is one out there.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Actually I think Young Earth Creationists could live with the Big Bang if they chose to. Just say it happened when they say it all happened. I'm not clear on the exact date but there is one out there.

I would like to agree with you, but I cannot see it happening.

YEC teaches, rather adamantly, the Universe began 6,000 years ago and the Flood of Noah's time happened 4,000 years ago. That's what 'Young Earth' means.

There is also the underlying thought that not agreeing with the idea of God creating all in six consecutive twenty four hour periods, requires one not accept God at all. I cannot remember or suggest how many times YEC supporters have said I do not believe in the Bible nor God because I do not agree with their understanding. (Other than it's been a lot!)

 

[archer75]

Some of the information in this is kind of interesting.

I guess the idea is: if you're buying "science," look what it points to. Or might point to.

As a non-physicist theist, it's hard for me to take a lot from this, though I appreciate the spirit in which it was posted. I mean, just speaking for myself, I haven't ever in my life for one moment studied any of the math that goes into interpreting the observable interstellar universe. I have literally no idea how these people do their work. So I just feel kind of like "well, what do I know?"

Apart from that...well, I don't know. Science is always limited. So they're not sure what to say about the pre-singularity state of things. Maybe they're just not up to it yet. Why imagine that this "points to" a supernatural creator when I could just guess that it points to...present limitations of speculation about the origin of the observable universe?

 

[archer75]

I would like to agree with you, but I cannot see it happening.

YEC teaches, rather adamantly, the Universe began 6,000 years ago and the Flood of Noah's time happened 4,000 years ago. That's what 'Young Earth' means.

Does no one allow that the universe overall is older, while the Earth itself is a mere 6k old? That seems consistent with the account in Genesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A point I thought might be slightly misleading was that they said that the universe at the big bang was 'tiny' or 'very small'. All we know is that the universe that we can see, i.e. the observable universe, would have occupied a tiny volume by contemporary standards, but we also know that the universe is considerably larger than what we can observe today, and as I understand it, our current models don't specify or require any size limit (i.e. it could be, and is generally taken to be, infinitely large).

Also, the big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. Most contemporary cosmologists think the big bang was some kind of state change or phase change in some unknown preceding physical context. There are also some who think time is an internal feature of our universe, which just is; i.e. it exists atemporally, and only its contents experience the flow of time.

Finally, science being a process of methodological naturalism, the big bang may hint at a beginning beyond space and time, but cannot hint at a supernatural creator; if the science 'hints at' a creator, it could only be a natural creator... [/pedant]

 

[Michael]

A point I thought might be slightly misleading was that they said that the universe at the big bang was 'tiny' or 'very small'. All we know is that the universe that we can see, i.e. the observable universe, would have occupied a tiny volume by contemporary standards, but we also know that the universe is considerably larger than what we can observe today, and as I understand it, our current models don't specify or require any size limit (i.e. it could be, and is generally taken to be, infinitely large).

Was Cosmic Inflation the 'Bang' of the Big Bang? - A. Guth

In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10-24 cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton.

That's pretty "small". Apparently you don't fully appreciate the finer points of Guthianity.

Finally, science being a process of methodological naturalism, the big bang may hint at a beginning beyond space and time, but cannot hint at a supernatural creator; if the science 'hints at' a creator, it could only be a natural creator... [/pedant]

Hah! "Science" invented *four* supernatural constructs in big bang theory, so what's one more? You have Godflation, God energy and God matter, not to mention Godspace expansion! Of course you need a fifth supernatural construct to explain where the other four came from in the first place!

"Natural" my eye.

 

[CrystalDragon]

I thought the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Christian priest to begin with, and before that people just thought the universe existed forever.

 

[Radrook]

Actually I think Young Earth Creationists could live with the Big Bang if they chose to. Just say it happened when they say it all happened. I'm not clear on the exact date but there is one out there.

Just glibly say it happened approx. 6000 years ago and voila! Problem solved? LOL! Actually,
that is only counting from our time to the creation of mankind and not back to the statement of in the beginning or the Big Bang.


BTW
JWS consider each creative day as being 7000 years in length and the rest day including creation of mankind to today with the remaining one-thousand years scheduled to be the Millennial Rule of Christ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's pretty "small". Apparently you don't fully appreciate the finer points of Guthianity.

You need to read posts more carefully. Like I said, that would be the observable universe; nobody knows how big the whole universe is (or was), or even if that's a meaningful question.

 

[Michael]

You need to read posts more carefully. Like I said, that would be the observable universe; nobody knows how big the whole universe is (or was), or even if that's a meaningful question.

You really aught to read the link that I posted which was written by your Pope figure of big bang theory. Guthianity is based upon the premise that all forms of matter and energy (observable and beyond) were caused by inflation, all of it created from his magic trick of redefining gravity as a 'negative' form of energy, whereas gravity is simply a curvature of spacetime in GR theory. Guth claims that the whole physical universe that we observe today grew out of a region of space that was smaller than a proton. That's small.

Of course there are mutliverse concepts, and membrane concepts and all sorts of other "creation options' to choose from but they are also usually based upon 'inflation' and Guthianity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is meant as a way to encourage fellow Christians and other theists.

To do what?

It involves how the Big Bang does not in any way contradict the concept of an intelligent designer of the universe.

Nothing contradicts unfalsifiable stories.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Guth claims that the whole physical universe that we observe today grew out of a region of space that was smaller than a proton. That's small.

Sure; like I said, that would be the observable universe

 

[archer75]

Nothing contradicts unfalsifiable stories.

Some people (atheists, Christians, others) feel VERY uncomfortable with the fact that the creation account in Genesis seems to say jauntily "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." While the scientific theories have a bunch of math and umimaginable timespans and so on. This difference -- that documents of utterly different provenance with utterly different purposes and composed thousands of years apart in different languages -- should use different words is a real problem for some people. I think that should be respected. I'm sure I would be disturbed by things that some of those people would find trivial.

I guess this video and those like it are noting the similarities -- i.e. -- that both accounts suggest a beginning and nothing we know from space or time before that point (actually, I'm not sure the Genesis account has to be read that way, but I don't know Hebrew and obviously people do read it that way, so that's fine).

If the ultimate point of the video series is "see? God! Okay, now get super angry" then I may have to disagree. But all I saw so far was something that pointed out two "beginnings".

I continue not to be sure what the point of all this is, but I guess no one's asking me.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Some of the information in this is kind of interesting.

I guess the idea is: if you're buying "science," look what it points to. Or might point to.

That is the "big" argument of the YEC faction. If that is correct, or just widely believed, then the Bible is false!

No, actually, it's not. Disbelief in God's existence (never mind the Creator part) has been attacked for centuries now. The Earth being round and not flat and a geo-centric Earth were attacked as 'anti-Biblical'. They're not.

As a non-physicist theist, it's hard for me to take a lot from this, though I appreciate the spirit in which it was posted. I mean, just speaking for myself, I haven't ever in my life for one moment studied any of the math that goes into interpreting the observable interstellar universe. I have literally no idea how these people do their work. So I just feel kind of like "well, what do I know?"

What an honest statement! You could read some of the 'popular' books about the Universe - beginning, structure and foreseeable end. Those books also deal with the 'science' (observations and conclusions based on those observations) that form the concepts.

Apart from that...well, I don't know. Science is always limited.

Yes, it is. And 'science' - which takes in a wide range of things - has NEVER claimed otherwise. Yes, there are some witlings who claim they have the ultimate secret to the Universe, or anti-matter or how women think; they are the opposite numbers of those who name a date for the Second Coming and both groups are worthy the same amount of time.

So they're not sure what to say about the pre-singularity state of things.

That is correct. They are not sure what to say and they admit it without reservation.

Maybe they're just not up to it yet.

More or less. No one has any real information about 'before' the expansion started.

The YEC faction has a similar limited approach, but pretend they have all the answers. The claim is "God did it!" and point to a very superficial view of the first two chapters of Genesis. That approach really doesn't explain anything. And it leaves all sorts of open questions like "Why did God create the Universe" and other questions of interpretation and understanding.

Why imagine that this "points to" a supernatural creator when I could just guess that it points to...present limitations of speculation about the origin of the observable universe?

I think the only answer to your initial question here is the 'Cosmic Egg' concept and the abrupt beginning recorded in Genesis is very similar. It all "started" at once.

In fact, Fred Hoyle (later, Sir Fred) was so exercised about the Cosmic Egg theory - because in his words, it was so similar to the Biblical account - Hoyle came up with the "Steady State" theory to counter the overly religious version and made up the derogatory "Big Bang" phrase.

However, I think you have a point. The science of Cosmology cannot simply 'make up' an explanation for an event with no information known. The initial expansion (improperly but popularly referred to as an 'explosion') cannot be explained now. Possibly never will.

As a Christian, I have no doubt God is the thinker, designer, architect, construction crew and maintenance team for the entire Universe. So in a nutshell, God created the whole shebang from nothing.

I don't think anyone was holding a stopwatch on Him while He did it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I thought the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Christian priest to begin with, and before that people just thought the universe existed forever.

More or less correct. Fr. Georges Lemaitre was the gentleman in question. His credentials are too much to repeat here; but he's all over the internet.

Actually, everyone didn't believe the Universe existed forever. Nearly every culture has a 'creation story' and a vast amount of water appear in nearly all of them. The Norse version has a cow emerging from a snow bank (or similar) and only the Hindu version has elephants.

The 'eternal' Universe was dreamed up between the time of Christ and the Middle Ages. It really doesn't work due to entropy - look up 'Heat death of the Universe'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some people (atheists, Christians, others) feel VERY uncomfortable with the fact that the creation account in Genesis seems to say jauntily "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth."

When I were a nipper we used to recite the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, who art in heaven..." (other versions are available). One wonders where God lived before He created heaven... no fixed abode?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Does no one allow that the universe overall is older, while the Earth itself is a mere 6k old? That seems consistent with the account in Genesis.

They can't, Henge. The YEC faction is firmly committed to the 6,000 year mark as the creation of everything.

Not to mention, too much evidence (geological and historical) exists to 'settle' for a 6,000 year old Earth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The 'eternal' Universe was dreamed up between the time of Christ and the Middle Ages. It really doesn't work due to entropy - look up 'Heat death of the Universe'.

There are models where the universe has no beginning or end because it is 'closed' in time, but it's hard to get one's head around - I understand the explanation for just as long as it takes to read it, if at all...