Big Bang Proven False?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

Nobody has ever seen an atom directly, with or without a microscope. Nevertheless, i think we all agree they exist. 

 

doesn't matter if it was with a microscope.  It has been observed, so your point is meaningless.

 

 

And it has been observated that the universe is expanding, so if something expands, it had to start somewhere,  doesnt matter if it is 5000 or 13.7 billion years ago.

but because we have observated that the universe is billions of lightyears in seize, and light has a limited speed, it is impossible the that light has traveled billions of lightyears towards us in just 5000 years.

Not that that is the only evidence:

http://edition.cnn.c...tational-waves/

 

 

Evidence isn't proof.  That the universe is allegedly expanding isn't proof that the universe began a singularity.

 

Did you really say that Evidence is not proof?

 

So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . .

 

Yes, evidence isn't proof.  Proof requires a different standard.  Proof is undeniable.   I can prove that the sun exists.  I can prove water extinguishes fire. 

 

Evidence supports a claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a claim because the evidence one possesses may not contain all of the facts on a given issue.  Evidence supports a claim, but doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

Evidence allows you to make the case that your claim has value, is rational and has a good chance of being true.  But there may be evidence (facts) that might work against your claim, as well.  It may be that your claim is based on insufficient evidence and in the face of new evidence your claim may need to modified or discarded altogether.

 

It is also important to understand that in a court of law, the standard of "proof" isn't the same as is required in a laboratory.  In court, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."   In court something is "proven" when the preponderance of evidence points in either direction of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

 

Science works from a far more stringent standard of "proof" that may or may not be attainable.

 

Regardless of whatever rambling you keep doing, the facts of the matter are these.

 

The universe is expanding. The universe, like everything else, is ruled by our laws of physics. it is not ruled by laws of physics which are non-existent, or those of some omni-verse we're yet to ever see, nor of universe X whose laws of physics are not so much laws as instructions.

 

Our universe complies with our laws of physics, or rather, our laws of physics comply with our universe.

 

Physical fun-fact number 1: The universe is expanding. This tells us that over time, it expanded, and so at one point, it was unexpanded.

 

Physical fun fact number 2: Time requires motion, space, and stuff. If the universe was hot, dense and motionless, just potential energy, waiting to be released, time itself would not be existent, thus the idea of 'before the universe' is contradictory. Before 'time' is a better analogy. We know that time had a beginning, but evidence suggests the 'stuff' of the universe, in a state without time, had no beginning. That's just logic. A timeless entity cannot 'begin' or 'end', but time can become out of that beginningless, perpetual 'stuff'.

 

Physical fun fact number 3: Every kind of 'stuff', matter or otherwise, has a gravitational negative energy, able to be counteracted by an opposing positive potential energy. The total energy in the universe is a mathematical zero. (The equilibrium zero, not the 'nothingness' zero)

 

Physical fun fact number 4: Because of this zero-energy existence, our universe has never not-existed. Time, on the other hand, did have a beginning.

 

If you imply God was the driving force behind the expansion of dense matters, thus beginning 'time', then there need be no contradiction between big-bang and bible. Though, 7 'yom' is more likely 7 eons than 7 days.

 

But none of that proves the Big Bang occurred. 

 

And yes there is contradiction between the BB and the Bible.  The Bible says the stars came after the earth was created.  the BB puts the stars before the creation of earth.  The BB says the unvierse is the product of a dense mass expanding. The Bible says the universe as crated from nothing.   The BB predicts that all life will simply die in heat death.  The Bible says that God will renovate the earth by fire and renew it  and the heavens and they will exist for all eternity.

 

So yeah, there is ton of contradictions between the BB and the Bible.

[jerryR34]

 

  The Bible says the stars came after the earth was created. 

 

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun.  If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural.  Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

  The Bible says the stars came after the earth was created. 

 

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun.  If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural.  Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

Actually God is light.  His glory can illuminate the earth without the need of a sun, which is what happened.  God is the lifegiver for all life on this planet.  Not even photosynthesis can operate with God's permission.

 

You're not a Christians so this something you can't understand.

[gray wolf]

The question of this other light has perplexed believers for centuries.  Augustine explored the subject to a great length; see http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html  for a summary.  All we know from the text is that God created the light and separated it from the darkness.  Apparently it came from a source in a certain location, as evidenced by the cycle of day and night on the earth prior to creation of the sun.

[Schouwenaars]

 

 

 

  The Bible says the stars came after the earth was created. 

 

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun.  If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural.  Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

Actually God is light.  His glory can illuminate the earth without the need of a sun, which is what happened.  God is the lifegiver for all life on this planet.  Not even photosynthesis can operate with God's permission.

 

You're not a Christians so this something you can't understand.

 

 

If God is light, then God is made out of photons (light=photons with frequency of 400-700 nanometres) . But gravity for exemple applies to photons. So God is manipultive. Like actually a black holes sucks in God?  And if i make a chest surrounded by 2metres lead and i make it vacuum, then god cannot be or go there. Seems rather strange, not?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

  The Bible says the stars came after the earth was created. 

 

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun.  If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural.  Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

Actually God is light.  His glory can illuminate the earth without the need of a sun, which is what happened.  God is the lifegiver for all life on this planet.  Not even photosynthesis can operate with God's permission.

 

You're not a Christians so this something you can't understand.

 

 

If God is light, then God is made out of photons (light=photons with frequency of 400-700 nanometres) . But gravity for exemple applies to photons. So God is manipultive. Like actually a black holes sucks in God?  And if i make a chest surrounded by 2metres lead and i make it vacuum, then god cannot be or go there. Seems rather strange, not?

 

No, God is not physical light.  God is light in that His radiant glory shines forth from Him and illuminates the earth.  when we say  that God is light we are speaking of His glory, not His essence.

 

Like Jerry, you are not a Chrsitian and sometimes when I post I forget not to use Christian terminology  that unbelievers don't understand.

[Schouwenaars]

Ok i'm glad it was an other definition of light. Some people would really think God is physical light. 

Now i can only agree with you.

[gray wolf]

So he's not a Chritian. Offer him up something other than refutations. You speak truth but let's not leave out a stronger message. Unbelievers need to know that the God of this majestic universe desires to have a relationship with them.

[Hawkins]

 

 

  The Bible says the stars came after the earth was created. 

 

The sun is a star...you can't have night and day or life for that matter without the sun.  If you argue otherwise, you shun science and rest your entire argument on faith and the supernatural.  Which is ok, jiust have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

 

On the other hand, you need to admit the following,

 

1. our science is limited (mostly to a 3D space environment

2. we don't know what time-space is. We have some calculations though, such as relativity and quantum physics

3. it boils down to what assumption is made, God or no God.

 

We don't know completely how time-space works in our 3D space, not to speak outside of it. We can't thus conceptually explain why 2 beams of light going towards each other will result in a constant relative speed of light. We only know that the calculation is so.

 

Now the last part, what matters is the assumption which we cannot verify. Under the assumption that no God exists, it makes sense to say that you need a sun for day and night to be told. Under that assumption that God exists, while we don't know completely the nature of time-space, thus we can't even say for sure that if earth was created in our current space.

[j102]

I don't see the Big Bang as opposed to the Bible.

The Bible says that the stars were created after the earth.  The BB says they were created before the earth.

 

But why can't the BB be the way God created the universe. I think it can. And I don't see that as a problem. I often think Genesis picks up where God started to cool down the mass we call Earth, and carries on from there. And since the Bible says with God a day can be as 1000 years (or maybe even 1 million) the 7 days of Genesis can be any amount of time.

The problem is that the Bible gives us a watery start to the earth, not a cooling start.  

 

The seven days of Genesis can't be any amount of time.  The Hebrew won't allow for that.

.

Please read up on what a lot of ancients and modern rabbi scholars thought about the genesis creation account. A majority of them agree that it is written in a poetic and symbolic nature. In fact a lot of the scripture has symbolic language all through out it.