Recently had a discussion with a non-believer (atheist). When he pointed out the Big Bang as "proof" for no God, I had the pleasure of pointing out to him that the Big Bang supports the idea of creationism. He was quite shocked. I thought it was funny and pure logic! What do you guys think?
Some cool articles:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.newcreationism.org/CreationArticle20.html
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/20 ... e_big_bang
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... eplyg.html
Big Bang and God
Moderator: Moderators
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #2
The problem is (or rather, one problem is) that the Big Bang theory was not the result of any religious doctrine or theological hypothesis. It came about as an explanation of the red-shift of galaxies. So any "creator" of the Big Bang cannot be any of the "gods" that have been described by earthy religions. In other words, if you accept the reality of the BB, then any religion that did not countenance the BB from the beginning is false.I had the pleasure of pointing out to him that the Big Bang supports the idea of creationism.
DanZ
Post #3
That doesn't really make much sense. The Big Bang doesn't have to be the result of any doctrine to be support for one. As a result, the exclusion of a creator based on this assumption is also non-sensical. Your last statement makes more sense. If you read the articles, you'll see how this statement and the Big Bang supports Creationism.
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #4
No, but any religious doctrine that did not include the BB is known to be false.The Big Bang doesn't have to be the result of any doctrine to be support for one.
That's true. Your atheist friend is wrong that the BB proves a "creator" doesn't exist. It oly proves that none of the earth religions are correct. There may be some alien civilization that had direct evidence of some superbeing that started the BB.As a result, the exclusion of a creator based on this assumption is also non-sensical.
Sorry, I've got the rest of the internet to read first.If you read the articles
DanZ
Post #5
The BB is in favour of no particular belief system or the scientific method. The BB offers a theory as to how the universe began. It doesn't state what created it though. Either side could argue that the BB supports their views.
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Big Bang and God
Post #6I think that your friend was sadly misinformed (a product of the education system in the USA perhaps). The Big Bang does not provide any kind of disproof of God (try to find any atheist sites which claim that it does). However, the Big Bang does push the length of time that the universe has been here beyond the limits provided by any literalist reading of the creation myths.unicorn wrote:Recently had a discussion with a non-believer (atheist). When he pointed out the Big Bang as "proof" for no God, I had the pleasure of pointing out to him that the Big Bang supports the idea of creationism. He was quite shocked. I thought it was funny and pure logic! What do you guys think?
Post #7
I would agree with unicorn and disagree with juliod.Quote unicorn:
The Big Bang doesn't have to be the result of any doctrine to be support for one.
juliod wrote:No, but any religious doctrine that did not include the BB is known to be false.
How does a religious doctrine not including the idea of a theory, even a 'true' theory' make the religion false? This is like saying since quantum mechanics doesn't include a theory of gravity, it must therefore be false, or saying that since chemisty doesn't include a theory of the origins of matter, it must be false? I'm not understanding your logic here.
I think the most that can be said for the BB vis-a-vis the general idea of creation is that it can be considered consistent with the idea that a 'creation event' occurred, if one interprets the Big Bang as the creation event. Of course, this cannot be proved since we don't, and perhaps never will, know the 'cause' of the BB or what, if anything existed either in our universe or others prior to the BB.
I would agree with McCulloch that the BB model is inconsistent with a traditional creationist model that postulates a young earth.
I did browse quickly through the articles unicorn posted, and they do seem to be interesting. Although I don't agree with Ross on all of his positions, he is thorough and I think reasonably open-minded. In particular, I think he is willing to reinterpret scripture in light of scientific evidence, which many creationists are not willing to do. Of course, given the nature of the Bible, we will probably never have a definitive interpretation, especially on the more ambiguous passages. Yes, one can interpret the Bible to incorporate the Big Bang event, but it is not necessary to do so on Biblical grounds, and many will not find such an interpretation acceptable or reasonable.
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
A move you will live to regret.I would agree with unicorn and disagree with juliod.
The bible includes a story of the creation. That story is not the BB. If you accept that the BB is true then the bible is false.How does a religious doctrine not including the idea of a theory, even a 'true' theory' make the religion false?
These theories don't overlap (or where they overlap they are compatible). But religions do overlap with astrophysics. And none of the religions contain the BB. Therefore all of them are wrong.This is like saying since quantum mechanics doesn't include a theory of gravity, it must therefore be false, or saying that since chemisty doesn't include a theory of the origins of matter, it must be false?
There is no such thing as a "general idea" of creation in the religious context. Religion is based on supposedly "special" knowledge, usually conferred by a superbeing that cannot be wrong.I think the most that can be said for the BB vis-a-vis the general idea of creation is that it can be considered consistent with the idea that a 'creation event' occurred, if one interprets the Big Bang as the creation event
There's not reason to be flexible in the interpretation of this "special" knowledge.
DanZ
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #9
micatala wrote:How does a religious doctrine not including the idea of a theory, even a 'true' theory' make the religion false?
Only if the theist reads the creation myth literally. There are many Christians, for instance, who do not take the creation myth literally. Without the need for biblical literalism, the bible's creation myth can and has been reconciled with BB. It may take a bit of mental gymnastics, but it seems to have been done.juliod wrote:The bible includes a story of the creation. That story is not the BB. If you accept that the BB is true then the bible is false.
micatala wrote:I think the most that can be said for the BB vis-a-vis the general idea of creation is that it can be considered consistent with the idea that a 'creation event' occurred, if one interprets the Big Bang as the creation event
This is why, when religionists find out that something is wrong it is then transformed into an allegory. As science progresses, religious faith retreats into their non-falsifiable allegorical fortresses.juliod wrote:There is no such thing as a "general idea" of creation in the religious context. Religion is based on supposedly "special" knowledge, usually conferred by a superbeing that cannot be wrong.
There's not reason to be flexible in the interpretation of this "special" knowledge.
Post #10
We shall see!Quote micatala:
I would agree with unicorn and disagree with juliod.
juliod wrote:A move you will live to regret.
I always reserve the right to agree or disagree with anyone on a point by point basis.Quote:
How does a religious doctrine not including the idea of a theory, even a 'true' theory' make the religion false?
juliod wrote:The bible includes a story of the creation. That story is not the BB. If you accept that the BB is true then the bible is false.
Quote of micatala:
I think the most that can be said for the BB vis-a-vis the general idea of creation is that it can be considered consistent with the idea that a 'creation event' occurred, if one interprets the Big Bang as the creation event
juliod wrote:There is no such thing as a "general idea" of creation in the religious context. Religion is based on supposedly "special" knowledge, usually conferred by a superbeing that cannot be wrong.
There's not reason to be flexible in the interpretation of this "special" knowledge.
This is assuming an 'absolutist' viewpoint that I don't accept as being inherent in religious faith. You seem to be saying that if any one part of a religious doctrine is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong. I don't accept this. To me, it is like saying if one aspect of the theory of evolution is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong. This is a viewpoint that many creationists take and that I reject.
Yes, there are those who do take this absolutist viewpoint, including those who are vigorously anti-evolution precisely because they see the repudiation of the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as a repudiation of the whole Bible. I do not share this view, nor do I think it is a necessary conclusion of having religious faith, even Christian religious faith.
If one accepts the BB, one is, in my view, concluding that the literal six-day creation model is false. This does not mean one is obliged to accept that all other parts of the Bible or CHristianity are false.
Quote of micatala:
This is like saying since quantum mechanics doesn't include a theory of gravity, it must therefore be false, or saying that since chemisty doesn't include a theory of the origins of matter, it must be false?
juliod wrote:These theories don't overlap (or where they overlap they are compatible). But religions do overlap with astrophysics. And none of the religions contain the BB. Therefore all of them are wrong.
I'm not sure it is fair to say that Einstein's theory of relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics in all respects. My understanding is that they do provide different predictions on very small scales.
Also, I would not say that religion and astrophysics overlap in the same way that some scientific theories overlap, precisely because religious belief or knowledge is not in the same category as scientific knowledge. Yes, some CHristians do believe the Bible is 'correct in all areas including science when science is discussed.' I do not share this view, and although I am not going to take a poll, I think a very great many believers would agree with this general idea.
To change my analogy a bit, if one branch of science is shown to be significantly and demonstrably wrong, would we conclude that all science is rubbish? Yes, I am artificially categorizing all of science as 'one system' in posing the question, but it seems to me you are doing the same with respect to religion or Christianity.
Overall, I tend to take the view that religion and science do not have much, if any, overlap. They are concerned with different aspects of our human experience. You can consider this somewhat a 'dodge' I suppose, but I think that some of the controversy between science and religion is artificially created and people on both sides play a part in this.
