Judeo-Christians often cite the Big Bang in their favor for creation.
Inventing the idea that a day has changed duration, which is supported neither by religion, nor science.
But the Big Bang, even assuming it is true, flatly contradicts the Biblical creation story.
Or, does it?
That is the debate topic:
The Big Bang, assuming it is true, contradicts the Biblical creation story, it demonstrates a timelie and other characteristics that Judeo-Christians should avoid, if they wish to make their point.
The Big Bang, revisited
Moderator: Moderators
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: The Big Bang, revisited
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
There are two types of Big Bang Theory-affirming Christian apologists I've seen who try to make Genesis "literal" even with the theory.
The first type is the "day converter" type where they divide the universe's history into 7 equally partitioned days, making some convoluted formula where God decided to arbitrarily assign 1.86 billion years to a single day, then tell us "day" when he meant "1.86 billion years" or whatever their calculation is.
The second type is the "order of creation" type where they only assign the "day" to the period in which they think it fits best. So day 1 was the "photon epoch" when visible light scattered through the universe; day 2 was the formation of heavier elements or whatever. Day 3 we get... plants? Day 4, the sun and moon form, and everything after that is just a sped up variation of the Earth's formation.
Neither looks good on paper, both are just weak post hoc justifications for trying to compare what is obviously a plagiarized creation myth from earlier traditional stories to what our best instruments and mathematical models have been able to realize about the universe's earlier history.
So the only type of apologists that are worth discussing here are the ones who just deny the big bang theory because they have to believe in their myth; they're ideologically conscripted to reject the secular approach because they've been inculcated from birth to believe that assuming their god's existence and the veracity of scripture is somehow the scientific default position, and everything else must square with it to be legitimate. A hopeless approach that can never be adapted to the scientific method as a whole (because it would be useless when trying to actually understand anything about reality; we tried applying the biblical narrative to history, and wound up making false assumptions like a global flood myth being historically accurate).
The big bang theory only proposes that extrapolating the universe's expansion back in time leads to a compressed universe under which our current models for the physical forces fail to predict any phenomena. Whatever it was back then is beyond our ability to speculate with current resources, except as a fun exercise or test for mathematical models we propose to try and catch an inkling of how reality works. It's really not this "satanic" level of heresy that creationists make it out to be. Their obscene response to it is little more than an education to others why you don't let supernaturalist dogma into the lab setting.
There are two types of Big Bang Theory-affirming Christian apologists I've seen who try to make Genesis "literal" even with the theory.
The first type is the "day converter" type where they divide the universe's history into 7 equally partitioned days, making some convoluted formula where God decided to arbitrarily assign 1.86 billion years to a single day, then tell us "day" when he meant "1.86 billion years" or whatever their calculation is.
The second type is the "order of creation" type where they only assign the "day" to the period in which they think it fits best. So day 1 was the "photon epoch" when visible light scattered through the universe; day 2 was the formation of heavier elements or whatever. Day 3 we get... plants? Day 4, the sun and moon form, and everything after that is just a sped up variation of the Earth's formation.
Neither looks good on paper, both are just weak post hoc justifications for trying to compare what is obviously a plagiarized creation myth from earlier traditional stories to what our best instruments and mathematical models have been able to realize about the universe's earlier history.
So the only type of apologists that are worth discussing here are the ones who just deny the big bang theory because they have to believe in their myth; they're ideologically conscripted to reject the secular approach because they've been inculcated from birth to believe that assuming their god's existence and the veracity of scripture is somehow the scientific default position, and everything else must square with it to be legitimate. A hopeless approach that can never be adapted to the scientific method as a whole (because it would be useless when trying to actually understand anything about reality; we tried applying the biblical narrative to history, and wound up making false assumptions like a global flood myth being historically accurate).
The big bang theory only proposes that extrapolating the universe's expansion back in time leads to a compressed universe under which our current models for the physical forces fail to predict any phenomena. Whatever it was back then is beyond our ability to speculate with current resources, except as a fun exercise or test for mathematical models we propose to try and catch an inkling of how reality works. It's really not this "satanic" level of heresy that creationists make it out to be. Their obscene response to it is little more than an education to others why you don't let supernaturalist dogma into the lab setting.
-
Walterbl
Post #3
The big bang speaks of an absolute beggining to the universe, which is consistent with a biblical model (Gen 1:1). A static, eternal universe would have been better for atheists, since they could have claimed that the universe hsa always existed, but this is not the case.
The bible speaks a out God stretching or "expanding" the heavens (Psalm 104:2), which is again, consistent with the big bang expansive model.
The 6 days of creation don't need to be interpreted as 6 literal days. The bible says time is different for God. 2 Peter 3:8-9 says a day for God is like a thousand years.
That almost sounds like something... supernatural, doesn't it?
The bible speaks a out God stretching or "expanding" the heavens (Psalm 104:2), which is again, consistent with the big bang expansive model.
The 6 days of creation don't need to be interpreted as 6 literal days. The bible says time is different for God. 2 Peter 3:8-9 says a day for God is like a thousand years.
In order words, at the very beggining, as we approach the singularity, the laws of nature appear to break down, and natural laws can no longer be used to predict anything.The big bang theory only proposes that extrapolating the universe's expansion back in time leads to a compressed universe under which our current models for the physical forces fail to predict any phenomena.
That almost sounds like something... supernatural, doesn't it?
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #4
[Replying to post 3 by Walterbl]
Walterbl: "That almost sounds like something... supernatural, doesn't it?'
The "supernatural" doesn't sound like anything. If it is "supernatural" you can't hear it. In fact, if it is "supernatural" it is indistinguishable from non-existent.
Walterbl: "That almost sounds like something... supernatural, doesn't it?'
The "supernatural" doesn't sound like anything. If it is "supernatural" you can't hear it. In fact, if it is "supernatural" it is indistinguishable from non-existent.
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2150 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Post #5
No it doesn't and no it isn't. The Psalmist describes God putting up a curtain above earth. Picture a camper setting up a tarp. That is the extent of the Psalmists understanding of heaven. A canvas above the earth. He is referring quite simply to the sky and has no concept of anything beyond what he can see with his eyes.Walterbl wrote:
The bible speaks a out God stretching or "expanding" the heavens (Psalm 104:2), which is again, consistent with the big bang expansive model.
If you read this in context, you'll see that this concept refers to God's patience. It isn't asserting that God can't tell time.
The 6 days of creation don't need to be interpreted as 6 literal days. The bible says time is different for God. 2 Peter 3:8-9 says a day for God is like a thousand years.
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #6
[Replying to post 5 by Tcg]
It is amazing how these religious folks pick the cherries from scripture and science and then twist and torture them into fantastic shapes that resemble nothing in the real world. 2 Peter 3 shows that even almost two thousand years ago sane people were asking why Jesus hadn't returned as promised, and the folks passing the collection plates were making the same excuses and claiming it would be any day now. I guess there is no reason to change the con, it still works.
It is amazing how these religious folks pick the cherries from scripture and science and then twist and torture them into fantastic shapes that resemble nothing in the real world. 2 Peter 3 shows that even almost two thousand years ago sane people were asking why Jesus hadn't returned as promised, and the folks passing the collection plates were making the same excuses and claiming it would be any day now. I guess there is no reason to change the con, it still works.
Last edited by TSGracchus on Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
TSGracchus
- Scholar
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #8
[Replying to post 7 by Walterbl]
Walterbl: "I assume you can come up with a better way to explain the concept of expanding space to people of the bronze age?'
Well, you wouldn't start off with general relativity, you would start with a spherical earth and an explanation of heliocentrism. Then you could explain planets, stars, and galaxies. See, just follow the path that human science followed.
And of course, not everyone is going to be able to understand it, because, God knows, even today some folks still don't get it.
Walterbl: "I assume you can come up with a better way to explain the concept of expanding space to people of the bronze age?'
Well, you wouldn't start off with general relativity, you would start with a spherical earth and an explanation of heliocentrism. Then you could explain planets, stars, and galaxies. See, just follow the path that human science followed.
And of course, not everyone is going to be able to understand it, because, God knows, even today some folks still don't get it.
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2150 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Post #9
As I've already displayed, it isn't an explanation of the concept of expanding space.Walterbl wrote:I assume you can come up with a better way to explain the concept of expanding space to people of the bronze age?He is referring quite simply to the sky and has no concept of anything beyond what he can see with his eyes.
Whether or not I could explain that concept to people of the bronze age is irrelevant to the fact that the Psalmist isn't explaining the concept of expanding space.
Chances are however, given that I actually would be explaining the concept of expanding space, I'd do a better job.
Post #10
Just to clear up some misconceptions:
Big bang is not the beginning?
""It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature.
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.""
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m12
Big bang is not the beginning?
""It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature.
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.""
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#m12
