Big Bang and God

unicorn · Post by **unicorn** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:06 pm

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

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:21 am

It seems it is a little self centered glee and QED.

we as humans are fortunate that the direction evolution took resulted in us, as opposed to any other mutitude of possibilities where other species would be found to be better suited to the environment.

LOL
If my parents were different people or if a different egg combined with a different sperm I would be different. Wait, those are my brothers and sisters..never mind.
If the environment had been different the life forms would have been different. Instead of skin we might have plates. We have found life forms at really harsh conditions hanging out at heat vents at the bottom of the sea.
Ones that live off sulfer. Life seems to be able to flourish in all kinds of environments. This just happens to be the one we flourish in. I was reading news reports in yahoo science news about the abundance of lifes building blocks being discovered in space. It seems to me that once something exists it chance of existing in 1. Or 100%. It also seems that evolutionary advance and diversity often happens after a mass extinction. It is like life is trying to fill in the gaps. The universe is so cool.

Glee · Post by **Glee** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:28 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:It seems it is a little self centered glee and QED.
we as humans are fortunate that the direction evolution took resulted in us, as opposed to any other mutitude of possibilities where other species would be found to be better suited to the environment.
LOL
If my parents were different people or if a different egg combined with a different sperm I would be different. Wait, those are my brothers and sisters..never mind.
If the environment had been different the life forms would have been different. Instead of skin we might have plates. We have found life forms at really harsh conditions hanging out at heat vents at the bottom of the sea.
Ones that live off sulfer. Life seems to be able to flourish in all kinds of environments. This just happens to be the one we flourish in. I was reading news reports in yahoo science news about the abundance of lifes building blocks being discovered in space. It seems to me that once something exists it chance of existing in 1. Or 100%. It also seems that evolutionary advance and diversity often happens after a mass extinction. It is like life is trying to fill in the gaps. The universe is so cool.

If my parents never met or there was a different egg/sperm combination 'I' wouldn't exist... its the same reasoning. 'We' as humans would still exist, but me the person would not.

I limited my statement to we as humans, because if we had plates instead of skin, or lived underwater, 'we' would not be humans any more, rather we would refer to them as 'them'/something else. Unless you want to broaden your group classification of 'we' to every living thing.

Its not self centred to look at the probabliities and say, wow, out of everything that could have evolved, we did... it's looking at something thats already happened and appreciating it. If it didn't evolve, something else would have, and they, being covered in provective plates and living underwater, would be thinking to themselves, "wow, out of everything that could have evolved, we did..." etc.

The universe is cool. I agree.

EDIT: But all this is getting off topic: Back to the topic at hand: Does the Big Bang support the idea of creationism? (my opinion last page)

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:37 pm

I was joking around. Your Point was well received. Maybe "We" as all inclusive is not a bad idea. I did not really mean any one was self centered even if I think we maybe at times and that maybe a necessary trait that we can not live with out. As humans grow so does their sense of relationship. If not we call them psychopaths or sociopaths. I am not sure if the big bang is any more proof then a steady state universe was proof. Einstein believed in a steady state he was wrong but his theories still were relevant. I would think that if they believe in a creationism that it would not matter how the universe was created or came about they would still
attribute it to God by definition and belief. I see no reason for a self creating God or eternal being starting things up or the universe doing it on it's own some how. If we presuppose everything has a cause we will still end up in the same place. I remember John or Jon Ankerberg saying that the big bang was proof that God created the universe and this was proof that the Bible was correct because it was the only Book that had a creator. I thought it was a long leap and wrong. It does not prove the Bible to be right. It was a reworked bronze age myth as some one earlier pointed out and should be taken as all myths entertaining and reflective stories of explanation. If a being created the universe we have no idea about the nature of that being. I question the whole Christian doctrine which I belive to be an Invention of Paul's troubled mind. They need the creation to have a fall and to justify the belief that Jesus died for their sins and was a God-man. If Jesus paid for everyones sins I find it interesting so much money is being made from the story. I guess some one is still paying for it.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:13 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:I see no reason for a self creating God or eternal being starting things up or the universe doing it on it's own some how. If we presuppose everything has a cause we will still end up in the same place.

Very well put. At least with the universe we can see it, probe it and get answers from it. The fact that it is evidently unfolding from some former, denser, state tells us nothing about whether it's self-extracting or being rolled-out by a God. Our track-record for mistakenly ascribing things to Gods alone ought to be enough to reject the latter in my opinion. However, the stately progress through the many distinct phases are not captured successfully by any creation myth that I'm aware of -- a lot could have been made of the actual sequence had it been passed down to scribes directly from its creator.

What we've got from the OT smacks of a semi-informed guess. When I say "informed" I mean ideas taken from superficial observations about the word. The sequence of creation:

1 Day and Night
2 Heaven
3 Earth, Seas, and Plants
4 Sun, Moon, and Stars
5 Fishes and Birds
6 Land animals including Man

Is a total mess. It's not even possible to fix it by reordering it. An improvement to make it more consistent what is known of the history of the Earth might be:

2 Heaven
4 Sun, but NOT Moon, and Stars
3 Earth, Seas, but NOT Plants + 1 Day and Night + Moon
5 Fishes but NOT Birds
6 Land animals but NOT man
7 Birds
8 Man

But this leaves out so many important (and unimagined) events like the transition from the initial opaque plasma into the transparent space that the first galaxies condensed into or the transformation of lighter elements into the heavier elements (that all life is so utterly dependent upon) following the initial waves of stellar formation. The drama of the first stars giving up their lives in galaxies to spread their constituent parts in stellar nurseries is surely noteworthy -- and had this been mentioned as a feature of the Holy Bible I doubt there would be the disagreements between religions that there are today.

I would go as far as saying that If these extra events were added to the sequence (albeit in a more poetic turn of phrase), and the sequence was amended as above, then it would be unreasonable for anyone to question the veracity of the Genesis account. Unfortunately, as it is, it looks like a decidedly clumsy affair that God would not be at all proud of having ascribed directly to him.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:41 pm

Unfortunately, as it is, it looks like a decidedly clumsy affair that God would not be at all proud of having ascribed directly to him.

Well said. I am sure a lot of things God would not be proud of that were said or done in God's name or cause. I have been rereading Heatshones work and see even more clearly that many attributes given to God are some of the worse that humans have and cherish. Absolute power, Absolute other, and the inability to respond among just a few. Also blaming the victim comes to mind.

Glee · Post by **Glee** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:21 am

Cathar1950 wrote: I was joking around.

......

QED wrote:What we've got from the OT smacks of a semi-informed guess. When I say "informed" I mean ideas taken from superficial observations about the word. The sequence of creation:

1 Day and Night
2 Heaven
3 Earth, Seas, and Plants
4 Sun, Moon, and Stars
5 Fishes and Birds
6 Land animals including Man

Is a total mess. It's not even possible to fix it by reordering it.

Thats a bit harsh. Maybe with some creative thinking you can see the light

1 Day and Night
Starting with the big bang, the amount of light would have been tremendous with all the energy being released... and then as the universe expanded it would gradually get darker, thus, a 'day' and a 'night'.

2 Heaven
While God lives outside of time, etc, he still might have thought that he should tidy up his place for the eventual visitors, just to make it seem a bit more official. You know, clean out the spare room and tag a banner over the door, 'heaven'.

3 and 4
Ok, heres where it gets tricky. Maybe they messed up this part and got it around the wrong way? Stars, sun and moon and then earth, seas and plants may have worked better...

OOrrr, as one person has put it, when the earth was made there would have been a lot of interstellar dust in the atmosphere, and so the sun/stars may not have been visible from the surface. Also, there have have been much more water in the atmosphere due to the extreme heat of the planet, causing purpetual storm clouds (also providing a possible catalyst for life, lightning!). Therefore, the Earth and the seas may have been able to develop before these clouds went away... potentially even the first stages of life could have been created. These initial life froms have no brains as such, and what do we call people with no working brains? Vegetables! Can't we extend this definition to non-humans? And what are vegetables? Plants!

Therefore, on the fourth day, when the clouds cleared, the sun, moon and stars became visible for the first time by -life- and thus is the first time it is mentioned.

5 Fishes and Birds
Fishes maaay include amphibians, and in a sense reptiles could potentially fit into that category, as some/most are sea/closely related to sea creatures. Birds, as you are aware, evolved from dinosaurs, way before mammals came to be the dominating presence on the land. Dinosaurs, being the infamous link inbetween reptiles and birds, could have been counted in either category/birds? Also, if dinosaurs -did- have feathers, couldn't they be classified as birds anyway?

6 Land animals including Man
Yeah, after all that, these guys fit in easy.

Done and done

Thats not a mess

Man, i'd want to take a rest after that though.

(I like to think about how God might have gone about creation. We think of ourselves as intelligent creators, but look at how we create things. Take the computer, for example. Without the previous use of computers, creating the current top of the line computer would be impossible. It is only after many generations of computers had been made and designed that we are able to make what we have today. We use our creations to create more. Nowadays people just hit the 'go' button on the conveyor belt and the computers make themselves. In the future, could you concieve of computers that analyse their own designs to make themselves more efficient, and create future generations that are exponentially more powerful? Thats how i imagine God and his creation - He sets the ball rolling and guides when it goes astray, removing potential corruptions from the system to achieve a perfect end result. Then again, its works just fine without a creator as well, so you can believe what you want i guess.)