Objections to the big bang?

[freezerman2000]

Adam and Eve were the first people to become aware of God...He gave to them the knowledge of His being.
He instilled in them His Spiritual being, therefore "creating them in His own image".

How can we look like God when He is Spirit?
A lot of people have made God in OUR image.


"You apparently insist that Genesis 1 is unreliable, but your theory is somehow reliable. As usual logical fallacies abound..."


Genesis 1 is not a science book..it is a simplified way to tell what happened, to people (the ones who were around when it was written), so they could get a grasp about the Deity of God.


"How do you know??? "

How do YOU know that it wouldn't happen? We now have the ways and knowledge to back up his theory. Read this...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory



"I wish you would apply the same standard to yourself."

Ah, but I do apply it to myself...do you?

 

[freezerman2000]

dragged me into a debate after all...
I've had my say.

 

[freezerman2000]

Anyway, evolution has nothing to do with the very beginning of everything(The Big Bang), does it?
Let's stay on topic out of respect for the OP.

 

[Look Up]

Soooooo......what's your objection to the big bang theory?

My objection to the big bang theory and response to your questions are as I have stated. I do not know what it is about my statement that you do not understand (hence your question above) or how better to explain it than I already have. Perhaps after careful re-reading of my response, you can ask a more specific question about it.

 

[gluadys]

Lawrence Krauss- "A universe from nothing". Stephen Hawing "Because there is such a law as gravity the universe can, and will create itself from nothing". Big bang is the atheists creation story to avoid supernatural creator/accountability.

Atheists may choose to use elements of Big Bang theory in their philosophy, but that doesn't mean they made up the science or that the science is false.

As noted earlier, the concept originated with a Christian, was originally denounced by a prominent atheist astronomer.

When it became evident that it was a good reflection of the origin of the universe, it could no longer be denounced, rejected or ignored, so atheists made of it what they could.

But Christians can also make of it what they will--testimony to the glory of the Creator.

 

[gluadys]

Soooooo......what's your objection to the big bang theory?

My objection to the big bang theory and response to your questions are as I have stated. I do not know what it is about my statement that you do not understand (hence your question above) or how better to explain it than I already have. Perhaps after careful re-reading of my response, you can ask a more specific question about it.

Actually, I would appreciate an answer to philadiddle's question, too.
From your post I was unable to determine even IF you have an objection to Big Bang theory. If you don't could you please say so? If you do, could you please say in simple language what it is?

Once I know what your objection (if any) is, I may be able to comply with the request to be more specific.

 

[Look Up]

There was no Garden of Eden in the OT sense.

What do you mean? The creation accounts in my view are part of the introductory narratives to the Books of Moses, and are probably intended in the only form we have to be read as such.

The Garden of Eden in the OT sense, as I read it, foreshadows the Tabernacle and Promised Land. It is the place where God dwells, and before the Fall, the first sinless couple, created by direct act of the Almighty, dwelt with God there. (Note the subtle theme of "east" in this connection.)

The Fall in part sets the stage for the Law, sacrificial system, and the acts of God toward restoring the Man's descendants (e.g., Genesis 5) to fellowship with God, fellowship that was lost by the Man (=Adam and Eve) in the Fall.

And NT record of Jesus' credence in Adam as placed in the Garden link the identity of Jesus with the Garden of Eden narrative.

 

[Look Up]

Actually, I would appreciate an answer to philadiddle's question, too.
From your post I was unable to determine even IF you have an objection to Big Bang theory. If you don't could you please say so? If you do, could you please say in simple language what it is?

Once I know what your objection (if any) is, I may be able to comply with the request to be more specific.

Try this. My major objection to the Big Bang Theory depends on how the theory is used and explained--either by taking Supernatural causation seriously or by crowding it out or ignoring or denying it, with "crowding out," ignoring, or denying Supernatural causation as very common in secular science. My objection concerns common, but not ubiquitous anti-supernatural assumptions. If Supernatural causation is taken seriously (as rarely in my limited experience in scientific writings), I offer no comment at least as yet by way of objection.

Of course I am not attempting to explain the whole of my former remarks here.

 

[samaus12345]

Freezerman 2000. Look at wikipedia. It says the big bang produced 3 elements (i dont believe the big bang)......we go from 3 elements to our periodic table (90+elements?).....that is ALCHEMY lol. Would NGC care to explain how we got our periodic table from those 3 elements? Also fish having down syndrome babies. The alleged mechanism for how "evolution" happened (in the unobserved past) is gene duplication. Google "Susumu ohno" look at his wiki page, this is it, this is the proposed mechanism "Ohno postulated that gene duplication plays a major role in evolution in his classic book Evolution by Gene Duplication (1970)" What happens when we ACTUALLY observe gene duplication in reality????? Down syndrome, and several other devastating things. Google image "trisomy 21/down syndrome".



For NGC the cosmologist. What is the "big bang" theory? No references to other websites what is it?

 

[gluadys]

Try this. My major objection to the Big Bang Theory depends on how the theory is used and explained--either by taking Supernatural causation seriously or by crowding it out or ignoring or denying it, with "crowding out," ignoring, or denying Supernatural causation as very common in secular science. My objection concerns common, but not ubiquitous anti-supernatural assumptions. If Supernatural causation is taken seriously (as rarely in my limited experience in scientific writings), I offer no comment at least as yet by way of objection.

Of course I am not attempting to explain the whole of my former remarks here.

IOW you are voicing no objection to the science of the Big Bang, but you are objecting to using the science as a basis for a philosophical objection to creation.

Let's point out that the lack of belief in creation on the part of some scientists doesn't mean the science is wrong. Nor does it mean that the theory per se supports atheism. It doesn't.

So I think we need to separate these issues, as you did here, and be clear when we are objecting to science on scientific grounds and when we are objecting to atheism on philosophical/theological grounds.

We can and should object to the misappropriation of scientific theories for the purpose of promoting atheism. There are NO scientific theories that in themselves--on a scientific basis--favour atheism over belief in a Creator God.

I agree that the denial of God's creative action, as if it were part of the science, is all too common among some scientists, and must be addressed by Christians. (Fortunately, there are also many scientists, even some other atheist scientists, who also object to this misuse of science.)

But let us be clear that in this case, we are not protesting the scientific observations and theories, but the philosophical misuse of the theories.

All too often I see misguided Christians throwing out the baby of sound science along with the bathwater of atheism. When they do so, they are actually supporting atheism and agreeing with atheists that science favours atheism over faith. Just like the atheists they oppose, they are making a stance of atheism part of scientific theory when it is not.

I take it then, that the actual answer you present to the question is that you have no objection to Big Bang theory.

But you have very serious objections to portraying Big Bang theory as a support and confirmation of atheism.

Right?

If so, I expect philadiddle might agree with you. As do I.

 

[freezerman2000]

Freezerman 2000. Look at wikipedia. It says the big bang produced 3 elements (i dont believe the big bang)......we go from 3 elements to our periodic table (90+elements?).....that is ALCHEMY lol. Would NGC care to explain how we got our periodic table from those 3 elements? Also fish having down syndrome babies. The alleged mechanism for how "evolution" happened (in the unobserved past) is gene duplication. Google "Susumu ohno" look at his wiki page, this is it, this is the proposed mechanism "Ohno postulated that gene duplication plays a major role in evolution in his classic book Evolution by Gene Duplication (1970)" What happens when we ACTUALLY observe gene duplication in reality????? Down syndrome, and several other devastating things. Google image "trisomy 21/down syndrome".




For NGC the cosmologist. What is the "big bang" theory? No references to other websites what is it?

Alchemy is man made. what naturally happens is not.Read a science book to learn what happens inside stars..The way they "create" new,heavy elements out of what they burn for fuel..
By your reasoning,stars are great big alchemists, and are evil.
Down Syndrome is caused by CHROMOSOME duplication..NOT gene duplication. Chromosomes are a PART of a gene.

 

[Look Up]

I take it then, that the actual answer you present to the question is that you have no objection to Big Bang theory.

But you have very serious objections to portraying Big Bang theory as a support and confirmation of atheism.

Right?

According to your at-least implied definition of the Big Bang Theory, agreed. But in my understanding, anti-supernaturalism is written into some definitions, in which case my objection is to the theory itself because it ignores, marginalizes, excludes, or denies supernatural causation.

I do not believe physics as applied to questions of origins can wholly escape metaphysics. If this might raise questions about the nature of the "Supernature" sometimes featured as a cause in the Big Bang, the thread does not seem to provide boundaries that would encourage discussion in the direction other, perhaps, than Paul's argument that God has revealed something of His true nature to all, but that suppression of that truth is common or nearly ubiquitous among non-Christians (and perhaps non-Jews per Rom. 1-3).

Thus once again, my objection or lack thereof with the Big Bang Theory depends on how it is used and explained--with language which is either for or against "the Supernatural" who is revealed to all, but of whom knowledge is suppressed by most.

 

[gluadys]

According to your at-least implied definition of the Big Bang Theory, agreed. But in my understanding, anti-supernaturalism is written into some definitions, in which case my objection is to the theory itself because it ignores, marginalizes, excludes, or denies supernatural causation.

Any definition into which anti-supernaturalism is written is not a legitimate scientific definition. Your objection in such a case should be to the illegitimate definition, not to the theory.

At the same time, I do not believe we have legitimate scientific grounds to demand a pro-supernaturalism definition either.

I do not believe physics as applied to questions of origins can wholly escape metaphysics.

Not doubt this is true on a philosophical level. All the more reason to determine what the evidence does and does not imply. Any empirical study of nature cannot make supra-empirical conclusions.

If we accept the constraints on science to deal with the natural properties of energy/matter in the space/time continuum, it may be that science can come to no ultimate conclusion on the origin of the same and is restricted to commenting on origins within that field, not the origin of that field.

 

[Look Up]

Any definition into which anti-supernaturalism is written is not a legitimate scientific definition. Your objection in such a case should be to the illegitimate definition, not to the theory.

Like it or not, what you label "illegitimate" science here is, in my opinion, commonly written into the fabric of law, medical code, educational precept, and popular culture.

At the same time, I do not believe we have legitimate scientific grounds to demand a pro-supernaturalism definition either.

Not doubt this [="I do not believe physics as applied to questions of origins can wholly escape metaphysics"] is true on a philosophical level. All the more reason to determine what the evidence does and does not imply.

Maybe I'm not entirely sure what to do with this. Empirical epistemology may temporarily engage in ignoring other ways of knowing as in a game played by certain contractual rules, but at some points to make scientifically or empirically based conclusions that may affect law, business investment, educational practice, media reporting and so on that fails to consider relevant truth known in supra-empirical fashion becomes socially irresponsible.

It is one thing to claim the limits of empirical knowledge, another to mislead by silence or by declaring supra-empirical knowledge as marginalized from society's relevant groups and power centers. Yet I contend such marginalization is common, at least in the US (and I think, Canada and Europe and Australia).

Otherwise worded, who said theology (for example) can have no say in knowledge scientifically derived? If a thing is true, why marginalize such truth because its source is non-empirical?

Moreover, to "demand a pro-supernaturalism definition" of science may simply be to comply with the truth (depending on what you mean). Or at least denial of "pro-supernaturalism" entails a rejection of truth in inherently immoral and idolatrous terms. As Creator, God is due thanks and praise in all things, and certainly in regard to the subjects of empirical and scientific study.

Or if you are subtly implying the dangers of religious sectarianism and church-state and private jurisdiction incursions, you may have a point, but that could lead to a lengthy digression.

Any empirical study of nature cannot make supra-empirical conclusions.

Probably God is not a valid subject of scientific experiment. And it would be unreasonable to conclude that God is like a frog because we see one in a pond. Yet the psalmist tells us the heavens (stars, sky) declare the glory of God. In another place, "does not He who made the ear hear"? So I think I've lost where you are going with this.

If we accept the constraints on science to deal with the natural properties of energy/matter in the space/time continuum, it may be that science can come to no ultimate conclusion on the origin of the same and is restricted to commenting on origins within that field, not the origin of that field.

How might scientific experiments on the origins of mass/energy or of the mass/energy of the actual universe be falsifiable on experimental and testable, i.e. empirical grounds? Can the event of mass/energy origins even be repeated in order to be experimented on?

Granted physicists may have fun (no kidding or sarcasm meant) extrapolating from astronomical observations, high energy particle collisions, and math that is above my head to theorize about a possible first ten-to-the-minus whatever second of "Big Bang" material existence, but in my view empiricists ought to curb the confidence of their conclusions and speculations when it comes to the origins of the universe--as some no doubt do even when humility does not make headlines and earn (esp. tax money funded) research grants.

So I suspect I agree with you here, but I am not sure I understand you.

 

[samaus12345]

Freezerman 2000 or anyone else who believe "evolution" Do you want to find out if there is any ACTUAL evidence? Email your nearest genome research institute just google "(whatever country/area your in) genome research institute" say "hi im just interested to know can you please tell me of evidence for human "evolution" and if possible can you please tell me of a literature article on it? Thank you". Post it.

 

[freezerman2000]

Freezerman 2000 or anyone else who believe "evolution" Do you want to find out if there is any ACTUAL evidence? Email your nearest genome research institute just google "(whatever country/area your in) genome research institute" say "hi im just interested to know can you please tell me of evidence for human "evolution" and if possible can you please tell me of a literature article on it? Thank you". Post it.

I've poked holes in your "arguments" and this is the best you can do?..
The burden of proof is in YOUR ball park...
Make the link one that is neutral.

 

[samaus12345]

Bible-creation. Bible of evolution religion-origin of species. Have you read it y/n?

 

[freezerman2000]

Sure have, but I want to see a LINK to a reputable NEUTRAL scientific site..
The Bible isn't neutral.

 

[samaus12345]

We need to establish a body of "evidence" that can be analyzed by both parties. I believe the only body of evidence worth anything is peer reviewed literature. I believe the field we are after is genetics. I believe an email to a genome research institute might yield such a paper. Will you Freezerman2000 send such an email to an institute of your choosing? Or will you TRUST me to fire off 5 or so to ones in America (i did 5 or so to ones in Australia) and copy paste their responses? So you or me, again if its me you must TRUST my copy paste? I would rather YOU do it but i will let you decide.

 

[gluadys]

Like it or not, what you label "illegitimate" science here is, in my opinion, commonly written into the fabric of law, medical code, educational precept, and popular culture.

That doesn't make it legitimate and it does provide a basis for objection to such writings. The point is that the objection should not be directed at the scientific theory, but at the incorrect anti-supernaturalist extensions of it in such non-scientific materials. That is a point that carries weight. For example, it carried the day when objections were raised to an anti-supernaturalist definition of evolution by the National Biology Teachers Institute. Some good work both by Christian theologians and even by some scientists who are themselves atheist, got the offensive language eliminated.

But if the opposition to anti-supernaturalist descriptive language had been tied to opposition of the science per se, it would never have got off the ground.

It is sometimes a difficult line to draw, but it is still essential to try and draw it.

So the question that confronts a Christian is this: is it the science itself that is wrong? Do I have reason to believe the observations and logical inferences from the evidence really lead to a different scientific conclusion?

Or is it that some people with agendas are promoting an objectionable metaphysical point of view using the science illegitimately for that purpose?

Depending on which it is, the strategy behind educating both the Christian and non-Christian public needs to be different.

Empirical epistemology may temporarily engage in ignoring other ways of knowing as in a game played by certain contractual rules, but at some points to make scientifically or empirically based conclusions that may affect law, business investment, educational practice, media reporting and so on that fails to consider relevant truth known in supra-empirical fashion becomes socially irresponsible.

I am reading an interesting book right now that deals with this issue. It is called Apocalypse Soon? and the author is Stephen F. Haller. Basically he explores the minefield of policy and decision-making in a time of threatened catastrophe when the knowledge base is uncertain using four case studies: the limits of growth scenario of the 1970s, the nuclear winter predictions of the 1980s, the thinning of the ozone layer (the only one on which serious international action was taken via the Montreal Protocol banning production of CFCs) and the current global warming crisis.

In the last few chapters he has been analyzing some epistemological theories which call for a re-evaluation of epistemological criteria to include more than empirical science and consider other aspects relevant to decision-making such as values and ethical concerns.

He is coming down against this view, not because he thinks such values and perspectives are irrelevant, but because he thinks the promoters of such views are confusing two different issues.

The first issue is "What is the case?" Ethics, he thinks, should not enter into a determination of what is the case. That is where empirical observation should hold sway.

But, he also points out that knowing what is the case does not address the second question: "What are we to do?" People who have the same information and agree on the facts of the matter, can still disagree profoundly on the implications for policy making and legislative action (e.g. should we or should we not set legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions?)

I think in a somewhat modified form we are dealing with a similar issue here. Too much controversy about scientific theories is actually not about science at all, but about theology.


The question "What is the case?" is, in principle, empirically determinable.
The question "What shall we do?" is not. That calls for a different set of parameters based more on values and ethics than on science.

Similarly, the question of "relevant truth known in a supra-empirical fashion" is by nature not a question that can be resolved on the basis of scientifically empirical investigation. It is not about science, it is about theology.

I agree, that it can be socially irresponsible to neglect such knowledge when applying science in other fields such as law, business, education and so on.

But when we as Christians object to such social irresponsibility, we need to connect it to the fact that we are speaking from a theological standpoint. We are not asking that scientific theory be rewritten, but that it be discussed appropriately--that is, as not in opposition to matters of faith, as not logically supporting non-belief. We should not be presenting our stance as an alternative science. It is not alternative science. It is an alternative view of what science means in a theological framework.

The media, the education system, popular culture, today takes for granted that science and faith are in an oppositional stance. That is the mainstream view we need to deal with.

But since Christians are also imbued in popular culture, many Christians also take for granted that science and faith are in an oppositional stance. And that's an in-house issue we need to deal with--providing better theological education to our own constituency. We need Christian educators who can show Christians how theories like the Big Bang glorify God--just as Paul said of all creation.

When Christians are convinced that the empirical knowledge produced by scientific study glorifies God, they can speak with conviction to the secular world in the same vein and cut the apparent tie of science to atheism.

But as long as Christians assume the popular culture view that the science-atheism tie is legitimate, they will end up futilely opposing "what is the case" instead of effectively exposing "why atheism is an illegitimate extrapolation from the scientific evidence."

Basically this is an area where Christians need to be consciously counter-cultural.

It is one thing to claim the limits of empirical knowledge, another to mislead by silence or by declaring supra-empirical knowledge as marginalized from society's relevant groups and power centers. Yet I contend such marginalization is common, at least in the US (and I think, Canada and Europe and Australia).

Sure, I agree. As I said, this is an area where Christians need to be consciously counter-cultural. But not muddy the waters by being counter-science or counter-intellectual.

Otherwise worded, who said theology (for example) can have no say in knowledge scientifically derived?

I am not sure what you are implying here. Certainly, theology can comment on knowledge scientifically derived. The theologian can always show how new knowledge of God's world provides us with even more awe and amazement to God's glory.

But theology is not a basis for discovering scientific knowledge or re-shaping scientific knowledge. It is a basis for the proper appreciation of scientific knowledge, and in some instances for the proper use of scientific knowledge. Science can tell us how to split the atom and turn that knowledge into an effective weapon. Theology (at least Christian theology) should remind us why we ought never to use such a weapon. Or any weapon of mass destruction.

If a thing is true, why marginalize such truth because its source is non-empirical?

Again, it depends on the context. If the point is to determine empirically what is the case, then a non-empirical source of truth is irrelevant. It simply can't provide the basis for the kind of knowledge sought.

But if the point is to develop a metaphysics or to determine a course of action to which the science contributes, then, definitely, a non-empirical (supernatural?) source of truth has a definite place, because we need more than empirical knowledge for these purposes.

Or if you are subtly implying the dangers of religious sectarianism and church-state and private jurisdiction incursions, you may have a point, but that could lead to a lengthy digression.

Yes, that is what I am getting at. There are things I believe to be true because of my faith (that God is, that God creates, that God sustains and redeems the world, that God upholds values of truth, justice and mercy, etc.) which cannot be stated as "known" truth in a secular context. Not because they are untrue, but because we cannot impose one form of faith on co-citizens who practice a different faith.

We cannot ask a public institution to promote our beliefs in preference to those of others.

Parents who want their children to learn science in a Christian context need to look to their churches and/or Christian schools to provide that. I do think churches and theological schools have a responsibility (which many have abdicated) to provide the resources for just such an education. We should not be leaving Christian families with no resources to deal with the popular secularization children are exposed to in the media, and often, in the public educational system.

At the same time both the principles of justice and fairness, and the law, require the public sphere to be theologically neutral. I believe we need to support that too.

How might scientific experiments on the origins of mass/energy or of the mass/energy of the actual universe be falsifiable on experimental and testable, i.e. empirical grounds? Can the event of mass/energy origins even be repeated in order to be experimented on?

Of course not. But not all science is experimental. Astronomers can't study stars experimentally and geologists can't rerun the formation of a limestone cliff. They still have an abundance of observations to support their theories.

Granted physicists may have fun (no kidding or sarcasm meant) extrapolating from astronomical observations, high energy particle collisions, and math that is above my head to theorize about a possible first ten-to-the-minus whatever second of "Big Bang" material existence, but in my view empiricists ought to curb the confidence of their conclusions and speculations when it comes to the origins of the universe--as some no doubt do even when humility does not make headlines and earn (esp. tax money funded) research grants.

I don't know why people keep implying that scientists are overconfident of their conclusions. I think it is a mistaken popular view. Almost every scientific paper is full of caveats about the level of uncertainty of their conclusions. All scientific conclusions, in principle, are tentative (though of course, there are degrees of tentativeness) and most scientists I have listened to are quite open about what is not yet known or known very imperfectly.

But there seems to be an ideology about the "arrogance" of science in some quarters that is impervious to the actual reticence and nuance of many scientific claims.

So I suspect I agree with you here, but I am not sure I understand you.

Well, I hope I have been a little more clear now.