Big Bang and the Bible
 

Is the Big Bang theory consistent with the Bible? If not, please explain. For the non-believers – If not God, then how?

Two recent threads about prayer and “God’s knowledge” were the inspiration for this post.

If you are a true believer in the big bang theory, then you should know Creation took place, therefore there is a creator. Therefore, God exists!

Just because we don't know what the origin of the universe was is no excuse to say that it must have been caused by some supreme being.

If one contemplates that there are more stars in "our" universe than there are grains of sand on earth, and that if you believe in the "multiverse", our universe is but one tiny champagne bubble in a huge bottle of universes… :shrug:

True believers do know and are at peace with it even though they don't and never will know every detail...it's called faith. Others will search forever but never find the answers. Hard to understand why some struggle so hard not to believe in anything or believe in some far out bizarre explanation. :ho:

limit for this post is 14000 characters long.
 

The Fingerprint of God tells the story

Conceit drives this ever ending debate. It makes no sense to me to watch and listen to scientist make ridiculous statements concerning a subject matter as complex and immense as the universe. Scientist can't even get evolution on earth correct. Its all guessing and one up manship between scientist.

Specifically as to the "big bang theory" subscribing to its authenticity is like saying that if you loaded a large building with alphabet letters and numerals and then blew it up the result would be the formation of a gigantic encyclopedia.

Perhaps the simplest explanation is correct. Perhaps the universe has always been and will always be and that changes are natural and occurring over time?

Human beings living between the two eternities struggle to understand their existence to make sense of the why's and how's that is also a natural occurring thing

The story of Genesis was an attempt by people of 2000 years ago to make sense of their world. It's a good story, very plausible.

Did you know it was a Catholic priest, a Jesuit priest, who first proposed the expansion of the universe theory or the hypothesis of the primeval atom which we call The Big Bang Theory? Georges Lemaitre.

..."Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity"...

-Lemaitre

One word -evolution

Richard, you got that right. Just because science can't currently explain everything doesn't mean that the automatic default is some sort of supreme being.
At one time people thought the earth was flat. Which, by the way, is supported in the Bible.
At one time people thought disease was caused by evil spirits such as the devil. Even today some of my favorite Sunday morning comedians are still trying to drive the devil out of sick people.
At one time people thought species were fixed and unchanging.
Many people still believe the earth is only about 10,000 years old.

But science has come along to shine a light on these old, outdated beliefs. And I'm sure as we continue to make discoveries many other incorrect notions will fall by the wayside.

One other thought. If this universe was created by a supreme being, who created the supreme being?

Is a red flower prettier than a yellow one? Does your spouse love you? Answers to this sort of question would begin with I Believe that... They are questions of feelings or beliefs. They are not science questions and while a scientist might examine your neurochemical response to a photograph of your spouse that would only explain that you respond to your own belief. And we all know that the answer to "does your spouse love you" can be very different next week or next year" Faith or belief is not science. Why do people conflate them? 2 + 2 is 4 You don't ask if I believe it. The sun appears to rise in the east because the globe rotates from west to east. You don't ask if I believe that. Science is based on a foundation entirely different from religion. Science is testable and mutable. Religion is untestable and immutable. The great strength of the scientific method is its opportunity for evidence to completely reconstruct knowledge. Religion offers no mechanism for change other than reinterpretation, or "we didn't really mean that" Is the earth flat, Is the earth the center of the universe and the sun goes around it? Is slavery sanctioned by your god? Is a woman here to be dominated by her husband? Will eating a lobster send me to hell? Does the FSM touch me with his noodly appendages? When will the world end?

For those of faith, whatever their faith you believe you have answers to these things and point to one book for your evidence. Is your book a Bible, a Koran, a loose cannon, a tipitaka? You can argue all you like that your book or your religion is the right one but your certainty is not science it is faith. And faith is a wonderful thing. It gives solace and creates a community for support. And faith is a terrible thing. It creates fanatics who are more than happy to die for their god, and citizens who are certain that their faith's rules should govern everyone.

So no scientific theory needs to concern itself with whether or not it is congruent with a holy book. And please don't get all confused on the use of the word theory. Theory does not mean a stab in the dark with no evidence. Do you understand the theory of gravity? Do you understand the germ theory of disease? A scientific theory establishes a structure for understanding observable natural phenomena. A good theory not only explains what we observe but makes predictions which can be tested which would disprove its accuracy and subject it to modification. Newton's theories were terrific but on the edges, wrong and have been replaced with Einstein's relativity theories. And these are subject to testing and certainly in the future will be shown to be wrong as well. The fact that science asks to be proven wrong and thus improved is its greatest strength. So the question is the Big Bang consistent with the Bible is meaningless to a scientist and only of importance to a person who feels the need to make their religion be not wrong if one accepts the science. It becomes either find support for the Big Bang in the limited words of your holy book, or attack the science because it does not explain everything (which is of course the whole point of science in that there are always unanswered questions)

I thought Gary Morse created the universe. I know he created mine.

Where does Ken Wilber's - AQAL or all quadrants all levels occurring together fit in? We look through a glass darkly.