Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Even the big bang requires faith

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
15 replies to this topic

#1
fire-heart

fire-heart

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 420 posts

I dont remember if it was an atom that exploded and expanded or something more complex that did it but the big bang theory while called a theory to scientis is a fact. Now I thought about this big bang theory see Nothing can exist without being created so I got into a debate with my friend who fully believes the big bang.

 

I kept asking how this happened and what created it till we got to the very first thing in the big bang theory which I think was an atom or something I asked what created it and he said nothing it was just there. I said how could it just exist without being created and he said how can God exist without being created and I said we dont know we ar to just have faith and lean not on our own understanding.

 

He then said then in the same way science requires faith that the atom just existed.



#2
Johnlove

Johnlove

    Junior Member

  • Members *
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts

I dont remember if it was an atom that exploded and expanded or something more complex that did it but the big bang theory while called a theory to scientis is a fact. Now I thought about this big bang theory see Nothing can exist without being created so I got into a debate with my friend who fully believes the big bang.

 

I kept asking how this happened and what created it till we got to the very first thing in the big bang theory which I think was an atom or something I asked what created it and he said nothing it was just there. I said how could it just exist without being created and he said how can God exist without being created and I said we dont know we ar to just have faith and lean not on our own understanding.

 

He then said then in the same way science requires faith that the atom just existed.

One either believes in a supernatural being, or a supernatural rock.



#3
Persuaded

Persuaded

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 221 posts
The "Big Bang" is not the Christian's enemy, the way evolution is. The two ideas relate to different events. God created our universe from nothing, and the evidence for the Big Bang is just the fingerprints of that process.

Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 is an unknown time interval, during which the angels that rebelled fell with Lucifer. In Eze 28:13 he is in Eden in a glorious state, yet in pre-fall Genesis he is already fallen.

I take this to mean that there was a prior "Eden".

Gen 1:2 is usually rendered "And the earth was without form and void....", but many think "became" is better than "was".

And Isa 45:18 uses the same word as Gen 1:2's "without form" when he says of the Lord creating the world: "Who did not create it in vain" (vain, same word as without form).

So the world was not created without form, but after Lucifer's fall it became without form.
And then beginning with Gen 1:3 God did his six-day work of creation.

#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,830 posts

The "Big Bang" is not the Christian's enemy, the way evolution is. The two ideas relate to different events. God created our universe from nothing, and the evidence for the Big Bang is just the fingerprints of that process.

Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 is an unknown time interval, during which the angels that rebelled fell with Lucifer. In Eze 28:13 he is in Eden in a glorious state, yet in pre-fall Genesis he is already fallen.

I take this to mean that there was a prior "Eden".

Gen 1:2 is usually rendered "And the earth was without form and void....", but many think "became" is better than "was".

And Isa 45:18 uses the same word as Gen 1:2's "without form" when he says of the Lord creating the world: "Who did not create it in vain" (vain, same word as without form).

So the world was not created without form, but after Lucifer's fall it became without form.
And then beginning with Gen 1:3 God did his six-day work of creation.

There is no gap beween Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.  That is the gap theory and is theologically unsupportable and in the Hebrew construction of those two verses, impossible. 



#5
Persuaded

Persuaded

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 221 posts
Hmm. I'm aware of various gap theories that meddle with the six day account, usually trying to blend evolution and creation. In our zeal to defend creation, many Christians paint "science" with too broad a brush, lumping it all together under the evil-lution category. I'd hate to see Christians make the flat earth mistake with this subject too.

I know of no scripture that refutes a gap before the six days, nor any doctrine that it would contradict. If light began with Gen 1:3, I don't think we can scientifically or theologically prove that time (as we understand it) existed previously!

Your statement about the Hebrew construction is the first I've heard. My Hebrew and Greek skills are limited to use of the various interlinnears which often flesh-out word usage and meanings, but aren't useful against "construction" arguments.

Regardless, there has to be a gap between John 1:1 (Christ pre existing) and Gen 1:2 where the earth, before the six days, is already created and existing.

I realize I'm a noob here, and you all may have been through this once or twice already, but I thought the thread was appropriate to respond to.

#6
Inchrist1

Inchrist1
  • Members
  • 41 posts
Scientific evidence that proves the Big Bang wrong,


"* Surface brightness of furthest galaxies identical to nearest galaxies: A 2014 physics journal paper reports careful observations of about a thousand galaxies that contradict a fundamental Big Bang prediction. A team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics published, UV surface brightness of galaxies, and found that, as reported in Sci-News, "Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical." And further, "It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy," said one of the study's co-authors, Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy. Hear more about this report on Real Science Radio as explained by physicist John Hartnett, one of the creators of the most precise clock ever made by human beings!"


* Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies: The Big Bang predicts that when telescopes peer especially far into outer space, they should see only infant galaxies. Instead, as we've been documenting for two decades, they are repeatedly "startled" and "baffled" (per the journal Science) to see exactly what the Big Bang predicts should not exist. For many of the most distant ("youngest") galaxies look just like the Milky Way and the oldest galaxies all around us! Just in time for our 2014 RSR Big Bang program, the Carnegie Observatories: "discovered 15 [more] massive, mature galaxies located where they shouldn't be: at an average distance of 12 billion light years away from Earth." Such discoveries prove wrong Neil 'Smokin' deGrasse Tyson and his claim last week that we creationists cannot not make predictions, as any glance at our RSR Predictions and our confirmed predictions shows. In 2005 a cover story for Science News stated, "Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men. That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos. Some of these babies have turned out to be nearly as massive as the Milky Way and other galactic geezers that have taken billions of years to form." Finally, in 1995, as NASA was preparing to publish their first Hubble Deep Field Image, Bob Enyart predicted (as would all biblical creationists) that NASA and the entire Big Bang community of astronomers, physicists and astrophysicists, would all be wrong, because the furthest galaxies would look just like nearby galaxies regarding apparent age. Learn more here, here, here, here, and here!
" Surface brightness of furthest galaxies identical to nearest galaxies: A 2014 physics journal paper reports careful observations of about a thousand galaxies that contradict a fundamental Big Bang prediction. A team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics published, UV surface brightness of galaxies, and found that, as reported in Sci-News, "Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical." And further, "It is amazing that the predictions of this simple formula are as good as the predictions of the expanding Universe theory, which include complex corrections for hypothetical dark matter and dark energy," said one of the study's co-authors, Dr Renato Falomo of the Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Italy. Hear more about this report on Real Science Radio as explained by physicist John Hartnett, one of the creators of the most precise clock ever made by human beings!"

There's more but don't want to make my reply to long.

Edited by Inchrist1, 01 July 2014 - 04:10 PM.


#7
Persuaded

Persuaded

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 221 posts

"Science" isn't as binary as theological doctrine. Things aren't "proven", generally. There is a pile of evidence on one side, and a pile on another, and maybe twenty other piles for different nuances to the theory. Sometimes one pile gets a lot taller, while there remains convincing contrary evidences in another pile. I find eschatology to be similar!

 

I don't support evolution in any of its guises (I see "after their own kind" several times in Gen 1, and that's enough for me!), but I believe it is scientifically possible or probable and theologically probable that God created the universe some time (what is time to God?) before he began his focus on our earth.



#8
SonOfTheNorthe

SonOfTheNorthe
  • Newbie
  • 3 posts

Is it not possible that God started the Big Bang? He did say "Let there me light."?
And that evolution was God's was of developing the world into what it is today, with the story of creation being a metaphor, because ancient peoples were not advanced enough to understand?



#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,830 posts

Is it not possible that God started the Big Bang? He did say "Let there me light."?
And that evolution was God's was of developing the world into what it is today, with the story of creation being a metaphor, because ancient peoples were not advanced enough to understand?

Ancient peoples had an advanced understanding of engineering and physics even by our standards today. 

 

God did not start the big bang.  That is nonsense.   Let their be light isn't the Big Bang.   The Bible says that the stars came after the earth.  the BB theory says that they existed 10 billion years before the earth.

 

Evolution is not consistent with God's omniscience.  An omniscient being would not need, nor use such an imperfect system like evolution.



#10
Cletus

Cletus

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
Ever hear someone say ... I dont BELIEVE in God?

#11
Persuaded

Persuaded

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 221 posts

God did not start the big bang.  That is nonsense.   Let their be light isn't the Big Bang.   The Bible says that the stars came after the earth.  the BB theory says that they existed 10 billion years before the earth.

 

And yet... there is a distinction between God "creating" (bara) and "letting be" (asah). God "bara" the heavens and the earth (1:1) and living things and man (1:21, 27). Everything else He "asah", or simply said or called (amar).  In bara there is a clear "something from nothing" concept expressed, whereas in asah and amar, the text has more of a connotation of allowing, rearranging, or making something fit for purpose. I know evolutionists can use this same argument to support their case, and that's unfortunate and it bothers me to be seen as helping "them", but it doesn't help the biblical cause if we don't try to fully understand what the Word says.

 

So in God making the universe from nothing, I have no problem calling that event "the Big Bang". The elements of the broader BB theory that conflict with Genesis are obviously wrong. Good theology and good science will always agree. It's always important in both fields to challenge suppositions, and remain flexible where the truth is unclear. God created the earth exactly as He described it in Genesis, but our understanding of that process can never be complete.

 

I prefer a conservative view of scripture, but I also prefer an expansive (infinite  :grin: ) view of God, where He takes full advantage of the physical world, time as only He knows it, and even the space between the atoms to accomplish His purpose. His reality is a lot bigger than ours, and we can do Him a disservice by limiting Him to a box that fits our human understanding.

 

Evolution is not consistent with God's omniscience.  An omniscient being would not need, nor use such an imperfect system like evolution.

 

How about instead: Evolution is not consistent with God's Word, full stop.  He mentions "after their own kind" or "seed was in itself" after every living thing was made, deliberately destroying the idea that any species can evolve from another.



#12
digitalinchrist

digitalinchrist
  • Members
  • 58 posts

Faith in science VS Faith in god

 

 

As I sit here today....I loved Jurassic park movies and dinosaurs, but I can't prove to myself dinosaurs were alive in the flesh. And that the Earth and sun are billions of years old. I can freeze water at 32 degrees. I can burn objects with fire, but I cannot honestly prove to myself that there is anything beyond the sphere of this Earth.  The playpen as I call it.  I look up and see all this stuff, I don't really really know its there.  You could say, well just get a telescope, again, I can't fly so I don't know whats up there.   An atheist could say the same thing about the bible.  There is no physical proof.  Yet we experience miracles all the time. And we quickly forget like Israel following Moses after leaving Egypt. Or the disciples that forgot how Jesus fed them with a miracle earlier.     To those with Faith no proof is necessary, to those who dont believe no proof is possible.



#13
gigman7

gigman7

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 168 posts
Even the big bang requires faith

 

You are so right! So does the theory of evolution. I'm thinking of writing a book on that one. To many "one in a million" chances that would need to happen. I have a better chance of winning the lottery's big prize 10 times in a row.



#14
Trinitron

Trinitron

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

I know that secular history has the Sumerians inventing glue 1,000 years before Adam and Eve were created.  As far as a big bang goes, there is faith involved.  Where did the dynamite come from?  Magic I guess.



#15
gigman7

gigman7

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 168 posts

I know that secular history has the Sumerians inventing glue 1,000 years before Adam and Eve were created.  As far as a big bang goes, there is faith involved.  Where did the dynamite come from?  Magic I guess.

Hummm, magic before humans. Cool!



#16
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts

I frankly don't find it relevant at all whether or not the Big Bang occurred to God's existence. The Big Bang model is fairly well established empirically and therefore I accept it. My current faith in God would not be shaken if tomorrow major findings somehow controverted it. Likewise, my belief that God created everything in existence would not be threatened if somehow it were empirically established there are multiverses. Taking the discussion to that place doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful direction as far as I can tell.

 

I don't think it fundamentally think it takes faith to accept the Big Bang, unless you also think it takes faith to accept the existence of electrons or the existence of the electromagnetic force. Faith, though, doesn't seem to be believing in stuff despite lacking evidence. It seems to come about as a response to an interaction with God. I don't have that sort of faith in anything else except God and His works.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network