The Big Bang (Hypothesis) vs. Creationism

[pchilde3]

Do you know how science works? A theory has to be very well supported - which the Big Bang is.

I believe that is up for debate! If it is so supported why are there so many discrepancies?

 

[pchilde3]

Why not interpret the Bible in light of the evidence? The creation stories even seem like they could be spiritual myths. There's nothing incompatible with an infallible Bible to think that some of it was meant to be understood as non-literal, because non-literal stories can still get a message across (eg: parables).

Judging from some of your replies, I sense you have changed your view on religion? Still atheist? Or have you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior?

 

[Davian]

I am right along with you. I believe it happened in 7 days. In the beginning days may not have been the same as they are today. What we call a day is the cycle in which our planet rotates on it's axis.

Does not the bible state that the Earth is fixed and immovable? A "day" would be the time it takes for the cosmos to rotate around the Earth.

 

[Paradoxum]

Judging from some of your replies, I sense you have changed your view on religion? Still atheist? Or have you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior?

I'm still an atheist. Why do you ask?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believe that is up for debate! If it is so supported why are there so many discrepancies?

Before any debate begins, don't you think you should at least acknowledge the point I and several others made about a sound wave not being physically possible without the existence of matter? Your whole OP is based on this idea, several here have explained why it's wrong...and you've pretty much ignored them. What would be the point of discussing the evidence for the big bang or the "discrepancies" you believe the big bang theory has if you just ignore the points other people make?

 

[mathetes123]

The big bang theory says that the observable universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Do you accept that?

No. Given your acknowledgement the universe had a beginning, what do you suggest was the cause?

 

[mathetes123]

I have seen this claim often. However, I have never seen anyone even only making an attempt at producing this logical deduction.

Are you suggesting something can be its own cause? Where is the logic in that?

 

[Received]

Why couldn't something be its own cause, or be caused from nothing (these last two involve suspending the principle of sufficient reason, which is entirely taken for granted to begin with), or have a fancy quantum mechanics explanation, or multiverse theory, etc.?

All of these involve a great amount of conjecture (read: faith), but it's far from certain and self-evident (speaking logically) that the universe was created, there-ya-go, from God, much less anything resembling a personal God fitting with religion.

 

[mathetes123]

Why couldn't something be its own cause, or be caused from nothing (these last two involve suspending the principle of sufficient reason, which is entirely taken for granted to begin with), or have a fancy quantum mechanics explanation, or multiverse theory, etc.?

All of these involve a great amount of conjecture (read: faith), but it's far from certain and self-evident (speaking logically) that the universe was created, there-ya-go, from God, much less anything resembling a personal God fitting with religion.

Romans 1:20 (ESV)
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

[Davian]

The big bang theory says that the observable universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Do you accept that?

No.

Then your reference to the big bang theory was an example of cherry-picking. Noted.

Given your acknowledgement the universe had a beginning, what do you suggest was the cause?

I used the term "observable universe" as it is my understanding that, scientifically, we cannot observe the current totality of the universe - subject to the "light horizon" - or further back than several hundred thousand years after the moment of the instantiation of the cosmos.

Did the universe prior to that have a "beginning" as we might understand it? I dunno.

Would cause-and-effect as we observe it within the universe currently apply to the conditions, at the quantum level, that existed prior to the expansion/inflation of the cosmos? We may only be able to speculate.

Perhaps the universe is eternal. Or the question, in this context, is nonsense.

On what grounds do you think a "cause" was required?

 

[Davian]

Romans 1:20 (ESV)
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Invisible attributes clearly perceived? Is this an attempt at biblical humour?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Invisible attributes clearly perceived? Is this an attempt at biblical humour?

More like an example of biblical contradiction. Sure, there are invisible things we can perceive (like air), I just don't think power and divinity are two of them.

 

[mathetes123]

Invisible attributes clearly perceived? Is this an attempt at biblical humour?

This says the creation is the evidence of the Creator.

 

[mathetes123]

Then your reference to the big bang theory was an example of cherry-picking. Noted.

I used the term "observable universe" as it is my understanding that, scientifically, we cannot observe the current totality of the universe - subject to the "light horizon" - or further back than several hundred thousand years after the moment of the instantiation of the cosmos.

Did the universe prior to that have a "beginning" as we might understand it? I dunno.

Would cause-and-effect as we observe it within the universe currently apply to the conditions, at the quantum level, that existed prior to the expansion/inflation of the cosmos? We may only be able to speculate.

Perhaps the universe is eternal. Or the question, in this context, is nonsense.

On what grounds do you think a "cause" was required?

Everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself.

 

[Davian]

This says the creation is the evidence of the Creator.

Unless you can present it in a testable, falsifiable manner, it is just something someone wrote in a book.

And, it wasn't even funny.

 

[Davian]

Everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself.

Did the universe prior to that have a "beginning" as we might understand it? I do not claim to know. Do you?

Would cause-and-effect as we observe it within the universe currently apply to the conditions, at the quantum level, that existed prior to the expansion/inflation of the cosmos? Experts in that field say no. Do you know different?

 

[mathetes123]

Did the universe prior to that have a "beginning" as we might understand it? I do not claim to know. Do you?

Would cause-and-effect as we observe it within the universe currently apply to the conditions, at the quantum level, that existed prior to the expansion/inflation of the cosmos? Experts in that field say no. Do you know different?

Experts say the Big Bang implies the universe had a beginning, which implies a need for a cause outside of itself.

 

[Davian]

More like an example of biblical contradiction. Sure, there are invisible things we can perceive (like air), I just don't think power and divinity are two of them.

Scenario - a couple thousand years ago:

Skeptic: Where is this god that you keep preaching about, what can't we see it, or evidence of it?

Preacher: Um... it's attributes are invisible!

Cleric: Excellent. That's one for the book.

 

[mathetes123]

Unless you can present it in a testable, falsifiable manner, it is just something someone wrote in a book.

And, it wasn't even funny.

I have no trouble seeing the forest through the trees.

 

[mathetes123]

Scenario - a couple thousand years ago:

Skeptic: Where is this god that you keep preaching about, what can't we see it, or evidence of it?

Preacher: Um... it's attributes are invisible!

Cleric: Excellent. That's one for the book.

Preacher: where did you come from?

Skeptic: Nothing