Big Bang and God...

[derekd234]

they are disproving that god didn't create the world. I don't believe they're trying to disprove God! what is your opinion on this? I think that if it disproves religion in the slightest bit, all research shall be stopped.

[rez]

Quote by: derekd234 they are disproving that god didn't create the world. I don't believe they're trying to disprove God! what is your opinion on this? I think that if it disproves religion in the slightest bit, all research shall be stopped.

Whenever you start talking about god you start talking about imagined things that live in unreality. Unreality is not real, so why is this in the science forum? Science deals with only real stuff.

[derekd234]

It has something to do with a scientific thing, doesn't it? the big bang theory is scientific. Yet i dont think thats even real either...

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: derek they are disproving that god didn't create the world. I don't believe they're trying to disprove God! what is your opinion on this?

I found this part very interesting and absolutely correct.

The Big Bang only disproves God if you believe God created the universe.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The Big Bang only disproves God if you believe God created the universe.

No, it does not.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: derekd234 Big Bang and God... they are disproving that god didn't create the world. I don't believe they're trying to disprove God! what is your opinion on this? I think that if it disproves religion in the slightest bit, all research shall be stopped.

No atom possesses the ability of sefl-creation, therefore it had to be created.

[Jack]

No atom possesses the ability of sefl-creation, therefore it had to be created.

What supports that contention? What makes you think that?

[Rainbow]

I have never heard/read/seen an atom to have self-creation ability.
If that is outdated information, let me know the actual data, please.

[Jack]

So because you've never heard/seen/read of an atom self-creating, you automatically discredit the notion, believing that's the most obvious conclusion to reach in the face of no evidence? Would that accurately summarize your position?

[pho3]

the only reason people believe in a big band is because nobody can disprove it, a thousand years ago people probably say earth surrounds the sun by an invisible rubberband, people would nod their heads and agree, until newton and einstein came along and made new theories that seem to make more sense. theories make sense of things by arent unnecessarily true, they can be over powered or disproved later. all the brains people are so smart nowadays they can make up a theory back it up with abstract somehow absurd mathematical evidence, and yet no one is smart enough to say its not true

[another day]

Quote by: Rainbow I have never heard/read/seen an atom to have self-creation ability. If that is outdated information, let me know the actual data, please.

Such blind hearted arrogance.

Realize that you know very little of what can be known, and therefore your one-off, simplistic judgement on something you have no clue about is thoroughly invalid. There's nothing more painful then seeing ignorant bystanders try to discredit entire scientific theories on nothing more then a few sentences of simple minded "reasoning"

[freedom13]

Cause & Effect

Cause and effect is the relationship between two things when one thing makes something else happen.

[Jack]

the only reason people believe in a big band(sic) is because nobody can disprove it

Is there a problem with that? That's how knowledge works. If a premise can be supported with enough evidence that it can not be proven incorrect we accept it as the best explanation possible until more is known. How else would you have us go about examining nature?
For what it's worth, the big bang is questioned by very knowledgeable scientists, and may not be the best answer for long. But since we lack absolute knowledge concerning the origin of the universe there's going to be room for the god-of-gaps crowd to insert their preferred supernatural being into the process.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: derekd234 I think that if it disproves religion in the slightest bit, all research shall be stopped.

W-what??

Please elaborate this, as my assumption as to what it means is very very ... O.O

[Lullaby Chainer]

Angry Astronomer: The Big Bang – Common Misconceptions
4) The Big Bang doesn’t leave room for God

This isn’t a scientific argument, but rather a philosophical one which is completely beside the point. However, since I see it used frequently, I’ll go ahead and address it.

The Big Bang, like all science, doesn’t have any implications either for or against God. What it may do, it place constraints on how God did things and these may run contrary to scripture. However, there’s two important questions here:

First off, is the scripture right in the first place? And, second, assuming it is, are you interpreting it correctly?

The first one is really beside the point given that it would be folly to approach such a topic, but the second is worth addressing. Many Christians have absolutely no problem interpreting scripture in a manner that’s completely compatible with scientific observations like the Big Bang and Evolution. In regards to the Big Bang, many people choose to interpret the “7 days” as a rather metaphorical statement in which days are better understood as “phases” and could have, in reality, been billions of years. Such people also note that Genesis’ account (roughly) follows the order in which science says things happened (although the order does differ on some points).

I think it’s also important to note that the Catholic Church has affirmed the Big Bang and finds no problem reconciling the theological and scientific perspectives on this point. Both Pope John Paul II and the Vatican’s official astronomer, George Coyne, have given strong support for the Big Bang theory. Additionally, the theory itself was originated by a Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître.

So we see, the Big Bang can fit well with scripture so long as one is willing to look at things from the right point of view.

[Jack]

An (I think) interesting aside.
Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang as a derisive definition of the theory that opposed his own steady state model, Lemaître's velocity-distance relation theory. Hoyle's theory fell apart, but his insult became the accepted term to refer to the accepted theory.

[pho3]

Quote by: another day Such blind hearted arrogance. Realize that you know very little of what can be known, and therefore your one-off, simplistic judgement on something you have no clue about is thoroughly invalid. There's nothing more painful then seeing ignorant bystanders try to discredit entire scientific theories on nothing more then a few sentences of simple minded "reasoning"

u didnt disprove him, neither was it a discredit.

[pho3]

Quote by: Isherwood Is there a problem with that? That's how knowledge works. If a premise can be supported with enough evidence that it can not be proven incorrect we accept it as the best explanation possible until more is known. How else would you have us go about examining nature? For what it's worth, the big bang is questioned by very knowledgeable scientists, and may not be the best answer for long. But since we lack absolute knowledge concerning the origin of the universe there's going to be room for the god-of-gaps crowd to insert their preferred supernatural being into the process.

how is the big bang supported with 'enough' evidence, and is it solid enough to be 'knowledge'? and the reason it cant be proven incorrect is because no one is smart enough to, but that doesnt mean people have to accept it as the 'truth', especially when in conflicts with God. i am talking about its huge influence on society and disputes raised.

[Jack]

the reason it cant be proven incorrect is because no one is smart enough to, but that doesnt mean people have to accept it as the 'truth', especially when in conflicts with God.

Lots of people are smart enough to examine the theory and determine if it's consistent with known science, if it's falsifiable and predictable. There are scientists that question the theory and are attempting to provide a better explanation. To anyone truly interested in discovering knowledge, conflicts with the supposed actions of a nonexistent being are of no concern. If you choose to ignore science in favor of superstitious thinking you're free to do so. But to argue against a science, a person needs to know a fair amount about that science. So far I'm not seeing any arguments against the natural origin of the universe that indicate a knowledge of physics or cosmology.

[another day]

Quote by: pho3 how is the big bang supported with 'enough' evidence, and is it solid enough to be 'knowledge'? and the reason it cant be proven incorrect is because no one is smart enough to, but that doesnt mean people have to accept it as the 'truth', especially when in conflicts with God. i am talking about its huge influence on society and disputes raised.

No, you don't have to accept it as truth. My problem is with people pulling ignorant "scientific" assumptions out of the air and declaring they have disproved such theories in a mere two sentences of simplistic "reasoning".