The Big Bang is nonsense, so why do I defend it?

[Ophiolite]

This is an elaborate way of dealing with another matter, so do be patient. I shall be as concise as my tired brain will allow.

Well, of course the Big Bang theory (BBT) is not nonsense, but I don't believe in it. Why not? Aren't these two statements contradictory? (And why is this in the Evolution sub-forum!) Let's look closer. Here is why I don't believe in the Big Bang.

1. Over the years many ideas held to be true by science were found to be faulty. (Almost half a century to accept the notion of mobile continents is an excellent example from my own field of interest.) It seems entirely plausible the same might occur with BBT.
2. The idea is inelegant and unattractive. A steady state universe with new matter created out of the void to replace that 'lost' through expansion is more attractive.
3. The science community is so locked into the BB paradigm that no serious attempts are made to look for alternatives.

It is unlikely that my belief will change: past failed scientific theories will always exist; BBT will always seem to me ugly; a change of heart on the part of cosmologists would be a surprise.

And yet on several science forums over the last decade I have defended BBT against attacks. (I think I have done it more than once on this forum). I have pointed out it is one of the best researched and validated theories in the arsenal of science.

Why do I do this if I do not believe in it? Simply, because I accept it. Much as I hate to do so, I must accept it because it is the best (by a very long way) explanation for a plethora of observations. No other explanation comes close. It would therefore be cavalier, foolish and indulgent to refuse to accept it just because I didn't like it. Thus, I shall continue to accept it and defend it, but I shall not believe in it.

This dichotomy of belief versus acceptance is not especially comfortable, but as an emotive human I cannot abandon my non-belief in BBT, nor -as a logical intellect - can I avoid acceptance of it. Any other position would be dishonest.

The point of this ramble? It disappoints me that Young Earth Creationists listen only to the emotive human voice and ignore the logical intellect. It saddens me. It puzzles me. It frustrates me. Expressing this disappointment, sadness and frustration helps me diminish them. And who knows, perhaps a YEC will be able to explain their thinking and relieve me of at least some of my puzzlement.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

This is an elaborate way of dealing with another matter, so do be patient. I shall be as concise as my tired brain will allow.

Well, of course the Big Bang theory (BBT) is not nonsense, but I don't believe in it. Why not? Aren't these two statements contradictory? (And why is this in the Evolution sub-forum!) Let's look closer. Here is why I don't believe in the Big Bang.

1. Over the years many ideas held to be true by science were found to be faulty. (Almost half a century to accept the notion of mobile continents is an excellent example from my own field of interest.) It seems entirely plausible the same might occur with BBT.
2. The idea is inelegant and unattractive. A steady state universe with new matter created out of the void to replace that 'lost' through expansion is more attractive.
3. The science community is so locked into the BB paradigm that no serious attempts are made to look for alternatives.

It is unlikely that my belief will change: past failed scientific theories will always exist; BBT will always seem to me ugly; a change of heart on the part of cosmologists would be a surprise.

And yet on several science forums over the last decade I have defended BBT against attacks. (I think I have done it more than once on this forum). I have pointed out it is one of the best researched and validated theories in the arsenal of science.

Why do I do this if I do not believe in it? Simply, because I accept it. Much as I hate to do so, I must accept it because it is the best (by a very long way) explanation for a plethora of observations. No other explanation comes close. It would therefore be cavalier, foolish and indulgent to refuse to accept it just because I didn't like it. Thus, I shall continue to accept it and defend it, but I shall not believe in it.

This dichotomy of belief versus acceptance is not especially comfortable, but as an emotive human I cannot abandon my non-belief in BBT, nor -as a logical intellect - can I avoid acceptance of it. Any other position would be dishonest.

The point of this ramble? It disappoints me that Young Earth Creationists listen only to the emotive human voice and ignore the logical intellect. It saddens me. It puzzles me. It frustrates me. Expressing this disappointment, sadness and frustration helps me diminish them. And who knows, perhaps a YEC will be able to explain their thinking and relieve me of at least some of my puzzlement.

I was once an agnostic and I subscribed to a similar train of thought. And to relieve your disappointment, I'm going to show you something.

To arrive at the YEC position, as I do, takes a literal interpretation of Genesis. It's as simple as that. The concept of YEC is as simple as ABC when you apply the concept of biblical inerrancy. When the Bible is held above all other claims, YEC becomes the model above all other models for the origins of the universe and therefore, life as well.

Biblical inerrancy, as a concept, is ridiculous to those who are liberal in their faith, even more so for those who are atheist/irreligious. I was talking to my mother months ago about Jesus and almost proposed the idea that He was frothing at the mouth and losing His mind in mental delusions as He preached the Word. I was an agnostic then and the idea didn't really bother me.

What spun me back 180 was when, in my belief and my mother's belief, that God prevented my fall into utter immorality and addiction.

I am not angered by those who are disappointed by those who are obstinate in their beliefs in YEC. Being irreligious, you appeal fully to logic and reason, and YEC is by no means logical/reasonable from a secular point of view. I merely hold to YEC because I believe in the perfection of the Biblical account and that's the end of my reasoning. There's nothing else to say.

I hope my response was satisfying in some way.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this and in expressing your decision process so clearly and honestly. That is very welcome.

If I may probe a little further - how do you deal with the weight of evidence that contradicts a YEC viewpoint? I imagine there are several options and I may have missed more than one:

• Ignore it completely
• Ascribe it to bad science
• Suspect the Devil has mislead researchers
• Blame it on an atheist conspiracy

Christians make much of the concept of sin. This seems to me one of the values of religion. From my secular, scientific perspective we are animals with primate instincts. These lead to behaviours, some positive and some negative. A code that identifies negative behaviours and seeks to control or eliminate them is a "good" thing. This is one of the things religions do. So what continues to puzzle me is that it is the logical intellect that is responding to the religious call to adhere to rules, yet the emotive human primate insists on using that same logical intellect to explore the character of the world. That's the part I still don't get.

If you feel the answer is too complex, too private, no more than what you have already told me, then that's fine. Please don't invest time in it if you think it would be fruitless. Again, thank you for what you have contributed.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I do appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this and in expressing your decision process so clearly and honestly. That is very welcome.

If I may probe a little further - how do you deal with the weight of evidence that contradicts a YEC viewpoint? I imagine there are several options and I may have missed more than one:

• Ignore it completely
• Ascribe it to bad science
• Suspect the Devil has mislead researchers
• Blame it on an atheist conspiracy

Christians make much of the concept of sin. This seems to me one of the values of religion. From my secular, scientific perspective we are animals with primate instincts. These lead to behaviours, some positive and some negative. A code that identifies negative behaviours and seeks to control or eliminate them is a "good" thing. This is one of the things religions do. So what continues to puzzle me is that it is the logical intellect that is responding to the religious call to adhere to rules, yet the emotive human primate insists on using that same logical intellect to explore the character of the world. That's the part I still don't get.

If you feel the answer is too complex, too private, no more than what you have already told me, then that's fine. Please don't invest time in it if you think it would be fruitless. Again, thank you for what you have contributed.

Well, my answer on that matter is actually none of the four points. I would suggest a fifth point to add to the matter. I am not as passionate with the whole Creationism bandwagon as most Christians are but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it. I find it a less important means of evangelism though. What I find to be a more effective evangelizing method would be to share my experiences with how God has changed me and the historicity of the rest of the Biblical account, along with relating to people's struggles through the Holy Scriptures.

• Faith

Faith is what leads me to believe in YEC. Adding up the Biblical genealogies from Christ's time all the way back to the end of the Flood (according to the Scripture, not secular science), I come up with a similar time list compared to James Ussher's and would agree with his conclusion with 4004 BC being the time of Creation itself.

I respect the hard work that is put into the theory of evolution, yet I do not believe it, no matter how convincing the evidence. I do find the Big Bang to be quite ridiculous, though. It's not as hard explaining how things are coming into being as it is explaining where they came from. With the Biblical explanation of the origins of life, it's obvious. God breathed the universe into existence in an admittedly unconventional order, placing the Earth before the rest of the universe, even the Moon and the Sun, which I find to be fascinating, implying that the Earth was and is set apart from every other celestial body in the universe. God had a unique plan for Earth, that's for sure.

When atheists/non-Christians and Christians 'fling poo' eat each other, engaging in, my opinion, fruitless debates, I consider the Scripture and see a divine simplicity that blows up the foundation of these debates. Trying to convince a non-Christian of Christianity is like this: If I had an invisible sphere in my hands, I would be sure of its existence. Now watch me try to convince someone else that I indeed have an invisible sphere in my hands. They'll usually think I'm crazy. Maybe one will come over and feel that there is indeed an invisible object in my hand, but that'd be very few. That's how I view evangelizing. I don't have to have a rational explanation for the Word of God because the Word testifies to those who are open to believing its majestic truths. There is no persuasion necessary. God speaks to those who are truly open to Him.

I know this whole argument makes no sense to you, but that's the point. Christianity doesn't make sense to the typical person. Trying to rationalize something that isn't rational by nature is like trying to prove that A + D = GSGSG when other people say that A + D = ARAER.

May my words make you ponder. God bless.

 

[Ophiolite]

I should have been in bed asleep five hours ago, so I'll just thank you again for a very full and interesting response. I suspect I may not have any rejoinder. I shall indeed ponder on what you have written and simply ask you reciprocate by considering the notion that your God may have just have used evolution as his tool: that would not diminish his works by one jot and it would have the benefit that the unseemly squabbles you referenced above would disappear.

Cheers.

 

[klutedavid]

This is an elaborate way of dealing with another matter, so do be patient. I shall be as concise as my tired brain will allow.

Well, of course the Big Bang theory (BBT) is not nonsense, but I don't believe in it. Why not? Aren't these two statements contradictory? (And why is this in the Evolution sub-forum!) Let's look closer. Here is why I don't believe in the Big Bang.

1. Over the years many ideas held to be true by science were found to be faulty. (Almost half a century to accept the notion of mobile continents is an excellent example from my own field of interest.) It seems entirely plausible the same might occur with BBT.
2. The idea is inelegant and unattractive. A steady state universe with new matter created out of the void to replace that 'lost' through expansion is more attractive.
3. The science community is so locked into the BB paradigm that no serious attempts are made to look for alternatives.

It is unlikely that my belief will change: past failed scientific theories will always exist; BBT will always seem to me ugly; a change of heart on the part of cosmologists would be a surprise.

And yet on several science forums over the last decade I have defended BBT against attacks. (I think I have done it more than once on this forum). I have pointed out it is one of the best researched and validated theories in the arsenal of science.

Why do I do this if I do not believe in it? Simply, because I accept it. Much as I hate to do so, I must accept it because it is the best (by a very long way) explanation for a plethora of observations. No other explanation comes close. It would therefore be cavalier, foolish and indulgent to refuse to accept it just because I didn't like it. Thus, I shall continue to accept it and defend it, but I shall not believe in it.

This dichotomy of belief versus acceptance is not especially comfortable, but as an emotive human I cannot abandon my non-belief in BBT, nor -as a logical intellect - can I avoid acceptance of it. Any other position would be dishonest.

The point of this ramble? It disappoints me that Young Earth Creationists listen only to the emotive human voice and ignore the logical intellect. It saddens me. It puzzles me. It frustrates me. Expressing this disappointment, sadness and frustration helps me diminish them. And who knows, perhaps a YEC will be able to explain their thinking and relieve me of at least some of my puzzlement.

How can science make the claim that a singularity existed, when a singularity is beyond any measurement or detection. The very idea of a singularity is utter science fiction. I cannot test the validity of that scientific claim?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I should have been in bed asleep five hours ago, so I'll just thank you again for a very full and interesting response. I suspect I may not have any rejoinder. I shall indeed ponder on what you have written and simply ask you reciprocate by considering the notion that your God may have just have used evolution as his tool: that would not diminish his works by one jot and it would have the benefit that the unseemly squabbles you referenced above would disappear.

Cheers.

There are plenty of Christians who believe that God divinely ordered the process of evolution and while I respect their views, I respectfully disagree in that aspect.

And our black and white tomcat is wanting to jump into my lap.

Cheers and God bless. I need rest as well, honestly.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

How can science make the claim that a singularity existed, when a singularity is beyond any measurement or detection. The very idea of a singularity is utter science fiction. I cannot test the validity of that scientific claim?

The Big Bang creates conflicts in those who are irreligious also. I understand how the Creationist ministry really helps the cause of Christ in that regards. It allows the Truth to be communicated through a more scientific angle than most ministries. I prefer a more direct approach to evangelism though. Just Scripture and God's voice through such Scripture.

 

[Radagast]

The idea is inelegant and unattractive

Huh?

A steady state universe with new matter created out of the void to replace that 'lost' through expansion is more attractive.

That was popular for a long while. It turns out to be wrong.

It is unlikely that my belief will change

I agree. It is unlikely that your belief will change.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How can science make the claim that a singularity existed, when a singularity is beyond any measurement or detection. The very idea of a singularity is utter science fiction. I cannot test the validity of that scientific claim?

When they're being more careful, cosmologists may say something like "If we run the clock backwards, the state of the universe approaches a singularity. If no other new physics intervenes, a singularity is unavoidable."

This is also why you'll see statements about what the universe was like a millisecond after the Big Bang, or a nanosecond after the Big Bang. We can't say much about the singularity itself (if it was there).

We're on slightly firmer footing with black hole singularities, since we see objects that behave much as we expect black holes to behave.

 

[Aman777]

The point of this ramble? It disappoints me that Young Earth Creationists listen only to the emotive human voice and ignore the logical intellect. It saddens me. It puzzles me. It frustrates me. Expressing this disappointment, sadness and frustration helps me diminish them. And who knows, perhaps a YEC will be able to explain their thinking and relieve me of at least some of my puzzlement.

As the youngest of the YEC, I will try to explain. The creation story in Genesis tells of a 6 Day creation followed by a single Day/Age of rest. The 7th Day is Eternity. We live today at Gen 1:27 at the end of the present 6th Day. Gen 1:28-31 is Prophecy of future events, which take place AFTER Jesus returns to our Earth. Hope this helps.

 

[Ophiolite]

How can science make the claim that a singularity existed, when a singularity is beyond any measurement or detection. The very idea of a singularity is utter science fiction. I cannot test the validity of that scientific claim?

THere are two points in response.

1. Despite the title of the thread this it is not about the Big Bang. The clues to this are: it is located in the Creation and Evolution section; my opening clause says "This is an elaborate way of dealing with another matter"; in my concluding ramble I say "The point of this ramble?", then go on to explain its purpose. So, your post is essentially off topic. Nevertheless, thank you for your interest.

2. Science doesn't claim a singularity existed. You need to read up on this in something beyond popular science articles and absurd internet claims.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is an elaborate way of dealing with another matter, so do be patient. I shall be as concise as my tired brain will allow.

Well, of course the Big Bang theory (BBT) is not nonsense, but I don't believe in it. Why not? Aren't these two statements contradictory? (And why is this in the Evolution sub-forum!) Let's look closer. Here is why I don't believe in the Big Bang.

1. Over the years many ideas held to be true by science were found to be faulty. (Almost half a century to accept the notion of mobile continents is an excellent example from my own field of interest.) It seems entirely plausible the same might occur with BBT.
2. The idea is inelegant and unattractive. A steady state universe with new matter created out of the void to replace that 'lost' through expansion is more attractive.
3. The science community is so locked into the BB paradigm that no serious attempts are made to look for alternatives.

It is unlikely that my belief will change: past failed scientific theories will always exist; BBT will always seem to me ugly; a change of heart on the part of cosmologists would be a surprise.

And yet on several science forums over the last decade I have defended BBT against attacks. (I think I have done it more than once on this forum). I have pointed out it is one of the best researched and validated theories in the arsenal of science.

Why do I do this if I do not believe in it? Simply, because I accept it. Much as I hate to do so, I must accept it because it is the best (by a very long way) explanation for a plethora of observations. No other explanation comes close. It would therefore be cavalier, foolish and indulgent to refuse to accept it just because I didn't like it. Thus, I shall continue to accept it and defend it, but I shall not believe in it.

This dichotomy of belief versus acceptance is not especially comfortable, but as an emotive human I cannot abandon my non-belief in BBT, nor -as a logical intellect - can I avoid acceptance of it. Any other position would be dishonest.

The point of this ramble? It disappoints me that Young Earth Creationists listen only to the emotive human voice and ignore the logical intellect. It saddens me. It puzzles me. It frustrates me. Expressing this disappointment, sadness and frustration helps me diminish them. And who knows, perhaps a YEC will be able to explain their thinking and relieve me of at least some of my puzzlement.

So you accept something you don't really believe in? So then you believe God stretched out the heavens? And that scientific research has shown that clocks undergoing acceleration slow?

So if they slow as the universe increases in acceleration, then they were faster the further back one goes, yes? So why do you think you can accurately calculate time going backwards without adjusting for time dilation, and still expect to get the correct answers?

 

[Ophiolite]

Huh?

Perhaps you missed the point that "inelegant" and "unattractive" are subjective terms. It is irrelevant if the rest of the world considers BBT to be "elegant and attractive", if I (subjectively) consider it to be "inelegant and unattractive" then (subjectively) that's what it is. But science, properly conducted, is not a subjective process, hence any subjective opinions may be, objectively, disregarded.

That was popular for a long while. It turns out to be wrong..

The vast majority of the data strongly suggest it (Steady State Theory) is wrong. However, I did not say it was correct. I said I preferred it, on a subjective, emotional level. I can see I didn't do a very good job of getting my point across. My apologies.

I agree. It is unlikely that your belief will change.

Excellent. Perhaps I didn't do such a bad job after all. Yet, despite my belief that BBT is probably wrong I live my life on the basis that it is correct. That's because I accept it as it is supported by evidence and argument. This conflict of emotion and "logic" is, I think, present in all of us. I find one arrives at better decisions if one recognises the conflict up front.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or the data relied on to dismiss the steady state is wrong? The most pronounced being cosmological redshift. If their belief in this is incorrect, then all the other data relying on expansion is also incorrect.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Of course lets not forget the cosmological constant when used by E to describe a steady state was his biggest blunder, but now that same constant is used to explain expansion, another big blunder????

 

[klutedavid]

THere are two points in response.

1. Despite the title of the thread this it is not about the Big Bang. The clues to this are: it is located in the Creation and Evolution section; my opening clause says "This is an elaborate way of dealing with another matter"; in my concluding ramble I say "The point of this ramble?", then go on to explain its purpose. So, your post is essentially off topic. Nevertheless, thank you for your interest.

2. Science doesn't claim a singularity existed. You need to read up on this in something beyond popular science articles and absurd internet claims.

If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. (wikipedia)

 

[Steve Petersen]

How can science make the claim that a singularity existed, when a singularity is beyond any measurement or detection. The very idea of a singularity is utter science fiction. I cannot test the validity of that scientific claim?

A prediction based on mathematics and physics.

 

[klutedavid]

You may need to rewrite this post.

When they're being more careful, cosmologists may say something like "If we run the clock backwards

Perhaps you should say, when science extrapolates beyond the range of known values or the laws of physics. Science will then make claims that are simply beyond the defined scientific domain.

the state of the universe approaches a singularity. If no other new physics intervenes, a singularity is unavoidable.

An unqualified statement, the concept of a singularity cannot be defined using the laws of physics. An extrapolation reaches an undefined region, a paradox according to the laws of physics.

This is also why you'll see statements about what the universe was like a millisecond after the Big Bang, or a nanosecond after the Big Bang. We can't say much about the singularity itself (if it was there).

There cannot be a representation of a time duration, after an undefined point at which the laws of physics do not exist. Time cannot begin from an unknowable point. You said, 'millisecond after the Big Bang', your assuming a time interval after that which is undefined by time?

No, you are not permitted to say anything at all about a singularity!

Science and the word singularity are mutually exclusive.

 

[klutedavid]

A prediction based on mathematics and physics.

This is not a prediction based on physics, simply because the extrapolation becomes undefined.

 

[Ophiolite]

If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. (wikipedia)

Which singularity is generally agreed to represent a breakdown in the accuracy of theory rather than a physical reality.