little bang

[standing_alone]

Does anyone here believe in big bang? If so, why? I'm certainly willing (and able) to debate.

Especially with the atheists.

Thanks.

 

 

[1x1is1]

I am a youg earther.  But I like to see this subject discussed.  A looking forward to reading opinions and beliefs as it defelops.  Welcome to Worthy by the way.

[alphaparticle]

I accept the big bang model because I think it best fits a few major items of evidence. I'm a believer and don't really think this issue is worthy of debate here. Mostly my hope is that others will see diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic and not assume everyone is YEC etc.

[standing_alone]

Thanks, 1x1is1.

[standing_alone]

Hi, alphaparticle.

 

Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang.

 

I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.)

 

It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not?

 

In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around.

 

Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

[alphaparticle]

Hi, alphaparticle.

 

Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang.

 

I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.)

 

It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not?

 

In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around.

 

Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession.

 

Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also.

[Tristen]

 

Hi, alphaparticle.

 

Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang.

 

I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.)

 

It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not?

 

In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around.

 

Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession.

 

Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also.

 

Hi alpha,

 

As a YEC myself, I obviously disagree with your conclusion that the evidence best supports Big Bang Theory. I also disagree that the issue is “not worthy of debate”. The prevalence of secular scientific models represents a significant cause of people rejecting the Christian faith; as well as a major stumbling block for people coming to the faith. So I think it benefits both Christians and non-Christians to see that questioning and debating secular scientific dogma is actually permitted (actually encouraged by the correct application of the scientific method) – and that one can promote alternative models of reality without compromising their scientific or intellectual integrity.

 

I do agree that the “faith v science” label promotes the illegitimate conflict myth – that science and faith are fundamentally incompatible with each other – which, in my opinion, panders to atheistic propaganda. I also think the admins can be a bit funny about what can and can’t be discussed in this section (which, in my humble opinion, stifles debate and engagement with unbelievers).

 

Most importantly, I appreciate your use of hedging language; “I accept”, “the … model” & “I think”. I think this somewhat nullifies the challenge of the OP. It indicates that you already understand that Big Bang is not ‘a fact’, or ‘proven’, or, as Neil deGrassy Tyson suggests, ‘scientific law’ – levels of confidence which cannot be justified in logic, or by the scientific method. Your use of hedging language further indicates that you understand the role of presupposition in scientific interpretation – which is a welcome change from the usual position of Big Bang proponents.

[Joshua260]

I'm a YEC also, but I wouldn't mind a discussion about the Big Bang. I remember measuring spectral frequencies in physics and read books discussing the redshift, and also about general relativity and how it was proven that gravity affects light. Then I wondered whether the gravity of our immediate surrounding space could be affecting the light wavelengths, essentially causing a redshift. Later I found where that exact idea had been hypothesized and tested to confirm it. I wonder if anyone else has heard of this effect or those experiments. I read about this over twenty years ago and can't remember the scientist.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

Hi, alphaparticle.

 

Of course you would have to show me exactly what evidence supports the big bang and only the big bang.

 

I heard that some people made a list with as far as 50 alternative explanations for redshift, for example. (People such as Paul Marmet, if I remember correctly; I haven’t actually looked into that, since I already know big bang is wrong.)

 

It’s philosophy that makes one pick an explanation over another. And speaking of philosophy, there is one philosophical statement that big bang, and in fact almost all the cosmologies in the world (more than 99.99% of them), is based upon. One that Einstein implicitly assumed, just as almost all cosmologists that followed him, including and even foremost the proponents of big bang. A principle that meanwhile has been proven so wrong. Now, would you agree that therefore, general relativity (and in fact any mathematical effort to portray the universe) is wrong, solely for this reason? If not, why exactly not?

 

In general, feel free to show me that it’s actual science that leads to big bang’s statements, and not philosophy. Because I can easily show you it’s the other way around.

 

Please also explain how exactly is “diversity of opinion among Christians on this sort of topic” (or on any topic) a good thing, and not a bad thing.

I am willing to answer these questions, but not here. I have two fundamental reasons for that. First, the outer court is apparently supposed to be for the engagement of believers and unbelievers for witnessing purposes. I don't see how that would be accomplished by us going at here. Second, I hate the existence of this sub-forum. I find it positively appalling. Why is it fatih *vs* science? This just propagates the image that if you become a believer you must embrace anti-intellectualism and turn against science. Or, the false understanding that science as a whole is someone entirely opposed to faith. You can see this is untrue by simply looking at some of the greatest scientists who ever lived and see that they were often inspired *by* their faith in their profession.

 

Alright, all that is a long way to say, if you want to post this on another part of the forum I'll engage your questions. If not, that's cool also.

 

[Guest Teditis]

Does anyone here believe in big bang? If so, why? I'm certainly willing (and able) to debate.

Especially with the atheists.

Thanks.

 

Maybe instead of debating the topic with others you could just explain your

thoughts on why the Big Bang model doesn't seem feasible to you?