Genesis and The Big Bang

[Youmu]

I don't even know what is Genesis. :???:

 

So I'm going to go with Big Bang being the valid theory.

[Rebdragon]

This is a false dilemma I think. If not someone can tell me the right word.

[Youmu]

This is a false dilemma I think. If not someone can tell me the right word.

The right word for it is "belief". ;)

[EdgedThesis]

Genesis claims to tell how the Universe was created.

 

The Big Bang describes why the Universe is as it is (expanding, seemingly from one point, etc.).

 

I don't get why the two are being compared. One deals with creation and the other deals with the prime instance in the chain of actions resulting in our Current Universe.

 

No scientist claims to know how the Universe was created or how it came to be. Just why it behaves as it does and why it is how it is.

[sohkmj1]

The Big Bang theory has been researched by countless people around the world. It may not be true (if I'm not wrong, it's a logically placed guess, but I'm not sure on this one), but it sure as hell is a better logic than some random omnipotent guy making the world out of nothing. Where did he come from? <_<

This is the main reason people primarily believe in the Big Bang theory than Genesis (excluding a part of the religious people). Faith keeps people believing in the unexplainable. In fact, most religion, supernatural stuff was invented up as (laughably stupid) stories by certain people who could not explain something, such as how the universe was created.

(God I can't comprehend stuff right today. I just randomly spilled everything that was in my head without thinking. Meh.)

[anonymous_user]

It's hard to believe either side because there's no knowing what happened. It would be hard to find proof of any start of the universe unless you go back in time and witness it(which cannot be done) or get someone who was there at the time to tell you(God(assuming he exists)). But God only seems to talk to schizophrenics so that's pointless. I highly doubt that my opinion is worth anything but personally I would go for The Big Bang rather than Genesis because it would seem more logical based on what I've seen so far in my life. I know explosions exist, but invisible omnipotent beings? Not so sure. Arguing about it is futile because it won't provide any answers, only convert people to believe in different arguments and even then we could be believing a big lie. If people have made arguments for all theories for so long, it is highly unlikely that it will come to a conclusion because there will always be people who believe differently.

 

I'm probably horribly wrong but that's what I think.

 

TL;DR: Logic versus Magic. Some people look through telescopes, others prefer kaleidoscopes.

[billybob323]

A couple people have asked it before, and I'll ask it again: why do most of you seem to think the big bang theory is incompatible with the Genesis? There are people who believe in creationism who also support the big bang. Here is a good article about just that, if interested: link

To highlight a couple things from the article:

1. Pieces of the BBT can be traced back to 1925 to a guy who was both an astrophysicist and a priest.

2. The Bible (even if you don't believe it) has at least 11 different verses stating that God "stretched out" and "continues to stretch out" the heavens, accounting for the expansion of the universe.

(A bit off topic, but could be another good read for those of you arguing evolution: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism)

 

Also, some of you appear to be arguing that the universe was self-created. You may not like to call it that, and you can cover it up with whatever jargon you please, but it is still technically arguing "the universe is self-created." If you honestly and logically look at that phrase, you will see that it is false by definition. A creation, by definition, requires a creator, and for something to create itself, it would have had to exist before it existed. So you're saying the universe existed before it existed? That is clearly a violation of the law of noncontradiction, which states that 'A' can not be 'A' and 'not A' at the same time and in the same relationship.

 

Some of you may say, "Well, the universe didn't create itself, it exploded out of nothing." This also goes against a fundamental law of science: "Ex nihilo, nihil fit" or "Out of nothing, nothing comes." You can not make something out of nothing, it is impossible and simply illogical.

 

You also have to look at the law of causality, which states that every effect must have a cause. This is also true by definition if you look at it logically. I think we can agree that the universe is an effect. So what cause the universe? The big bang? The big bang was technically an "explosion" of sorts, so what cause the big bang? A build-up of temperature and pressure? What caused this build-up temperature and pressure? This can repeat forever, so for there to exist any effect at all, there must have been an uncaused cause, or a "first cause", or something that is eternal.

 

If you do not believe in noncontradiction or causality, then you are living in absurdity and your claims can not be viewed as valid. In fact, it has been shown that the only time anyone denies the laws of noncontradiction and causality is when they are trying to force a claim that logic says can not be true (I believe we will see this soon enough if this thread continues).

 

 

Anyway, there's my words for this debate. Make of them what you will. As others have said, there will always be disagreements in this area.

[Sunli]

The idea that the universe is a product of chance requires belief in what scientists describe as many "lucky accidents" or "coincidences." For example, the universe is made up of an abundance of the simplest atomshydrogen and helium. Life, however, requires not only hydrogen but also an abundance of more complex atoms, especially carbon and oxygen. Scientists used to wonder where such precious atoms come from.

 

Is it just a coincidence that the complex atoms necessary to sustain life are manufactured inside certain giant stars? And is it just by chance that some of these giant stars explode as supernovas, spewing out their treasure chest of rare atoms? Sir Fred Hoyle, who was involved in the making of these discoveries, said: "I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed."

 

To avoid extremes of temperature, the earth must orbit at the correct distance from the sun. In other solar systems, planets have been detected that orbit sunlike stars and are considered to be in the 'habitable zone'that is, they are capable of sustaining liquid water. But even these so-called habitable planets may still not be suitable for human life. They must also rotate at the right speed and be the right size.

 

If the earth were slightly smaller and lighter than it is, the force of gravity would be weaker and much of the earth's precious atmosphere would have escaped into space. This can be seen in the case of the moon and the two planets Mercury and Mars. Being smaller and weighing less than the earth, they have little or no atmosphere. But what if the earth were slightly bigger and heavier than it is?

 

Then the earth's gravitation would be stronger, and light gases, such as hydrogen and helium, would take longer to escape from the atmosphere. "More importantly," explains the science textbook Environment of Life, "the delicate balance between the gases of the atmosphere would be upset."

 

Or consider just oxygen, which fuels combustion. If its level were to increase by 1 percent, forest fires would break out more frequently. On the other hand, if the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide kept increasing, we would suffer the consequences of an overheated earth.

 

Another ideal feature is the shape of earth's orbit. If the orbit were more elliptic, we would suffer unbearable extremes of temperature. Instead, the earth has a nearly circular orbit. Of course, the situation would change if a giant planet like Jupiter were to pass nearby. In recent years scientists have uncovered evidence that some stars have large Jupiterlike planets orbiting very close to them. Many of these Jupiterlike planets have eccentric orbits. Any earthlike planets in such systems would be in trouble.

 

Explained this, I wanted to compare sciense with the Genesis, because so many people (christians especially) think the Bible state that God created earth in 24 hours. It does not.

 

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible's opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

 

Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findingsor their potential future refinementscontradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of "the heavens and the earth." Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

 

 

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Mosesthe writer of Genesislater referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion? No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God's creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, "God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

 

How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

 

Contrary to the claims of some fundamentalists, the book of Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonises with many recent scientific discoveries.

 

Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible's declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago?

 

No, I do not support a big bang theory, I belive in a Creator.

[Rien]

Also, some of you appear to be arguing that the universe was self-created. You may not like to call it that, and you can cover it up with whatever jargon you please, but it is still technically arguing "the universe is self-created." If you honestly and logically look at that phrase, you will see that it is false by definition. A creation, by definition, requires a creator, and for something to create itself, it would have had to exist before it existed. So you're saying the universe existed before it existed? That is clearly a violation of the law of noncontradiction, which states that 'A' can not be 'A' and 'not A' at the same time and in the same relationship.

 

You say that the universe must have had a creator, and that, presumably, the creator was some form of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. My question to you is this, however: If the universe "had to have been created", then what makes your presumed creator any different? Where did "God" come from? If you say that he has always existed/was the first cause, then why can't that be the case with the universe? Why, instead of considering that the universe may have always existed, do you interpolate further and assert that some supernatural being must have created it instead?

 

I maintain that the universe is, in fact, your "God", albeit inanimate. By definition, the universe encompasses all of existence, and evidence further suggests that it has likely always existed in a continual cycle of rebirth through a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. What need is there of a "God-figure" when the universe itself appears to fit the description?

[Barihawk]

Since I believe wholeheartedly with Sunli, who was able to take the time that I could not to type out such a response, I will tack on this.

 

Creation and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive, and I think Adrenal is screwing with you all to make you look silly for not noticing this. Dr. Lemaitre was praised by the Vatican for his theory, by the way :P. The Big Bang is actually what nearly all educated Christians generally believe in. We also accept the true age of the Earth, and believe that man in it's current form has been around for at least 40 thousand years due to archeological evidence of culture.

 

It's a common smear tactic of those that dislike religion to call those who follow it a bunch of backwards fools. The truth is, religion is constantly adapting and there are many scholars and theologians out there who are trying to keep it a living faith that adapts to the modern times and knowledge.

 

All we have learned from science in the past thousands of years...all the knowledge we have ever gained is immense and fills countless volumes, but it has yet to disprove God's existence. And the more people try to learn to accomplish this goal, the finish line has not gotten closer, although they do discover countless other things that benefit humanity.

 

Tl:dr: Science + Religion = happy handholding buddies if you are doing it right.

 

Edit: I also maintain that the vast majority of you have never read Genesis, opened a Bible except to follow along with the pastor, or have not followed my advice from several years ago that before you debate the Bible, you actually have to read it.

 

I might just have to start a Bible study for some of you, honestly. You can break apart the entire book line by line in about a year. Let's do it.

[billybob323]

Why, instead of considering that the universe may have always existed, do you interpolate further and assert that some supernatural being must have created it instead?

 

Just to make sure I understand your question: you want to know why I believe the universe (which in my opinion does not include God, but that's another matter) is the finite creation of an infinite creator instead of itself being infinite?

 

If, as you say, the universe itself is eternal, it must follow that everything in the universe is eternal. This obviously goes against the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of decay, which states that everything will eventually break down in time and that the usable energy in the universe is becoming less and less until there will eventually be none.

 

As for the continual cycle of big bangs/big crunches, there is a severe lack of empirical correlation and testability with this theory. It is generally accepted among scientists that this theory is outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove and is considered more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. To believe such a theory, you are even going against such minds as Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein.

[Rien]

-snip-

You're correct; we would not be alive right now to debate this if any one of those many coincidences did not occur in the formation of our universe/planet. It seems staggering, considering everything that could have gone wrong, that we exist at all, and this has led many (including yourself, if I may presume) to believe that the universe simply must have been intelligently and purposefully designed.

 

"I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed."

 

This quote you've provided essentially summarizes your post (I apologize if I'm being presumptuous again). I admit, the sheer number of coincidences which have taken place throughout time add up to an almost incalculably impossible set of probabilities. At first glance, we should not be here, considering the odds. And yet, because we do exist, we must have been intentionally created, right?

 

This is where, I believe, our inherent fallicies as humans blind us. From our flawed and limited perspectives, the probability of us existing is so infinitely small that we simply cannot comprehend it. Because of this, many make a leap in logic and outright assume that we couldn't exist through simple chance - that we must exist because some infinitely more powerful and knowledgeable being ordained it to be so. However, just because the probability is so small that we can't possibly accept or otherwise comprehend it, that doesn't mean that we are correct in denying the possibility.

 

It's difficult to explain, but what I'm trying to convey is that we are ultimately insignificant. We account, on the macro-scale of the universe, for virtually nothing. Mankind has existed for a few thousand years; the universe has existed for many billions of years since the last Big Bang (and, if the cyclic series of Big Bangs/Big Crunches theory is correct, even longer than that - essentially spanning back *literally* forever). How can we hope to understand anything concerning "our" universe? What, to us, may seem an impossible probability (the existence of life), has no meaning to the universe at large. I'm sure other forms of life have sprung up many times across the universe in the past only to fade away in time; we are by no means a special case, I'm sure.

 

If the probability of life emerging were, for example, .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, I'm sure most people would say that the chance would be too small to be realistic. However, while it may appear unlikely from our perspective, who's to say that it wouldn't become a practical certainty if given enough time and opportunities? After all, we know that, at the very least, the universe has existed for billions of years and has probably cycled through several incarnations in addition to that, so is that chance really so small, in truth?

 

I apologize for rambling, but, like I said, I'm having trouble making my point. :lol: Essentially, I suppose you could say, the entire issue is a matter of scope - something which, as humans with an average lifespan of a mere ~70 years, we simply cannot pretend to have or understand.

[billybob323]

However, just because the probability is so small that we can't possibly accept or otherwise comprehend it, that doesn't mean that we are correct in denying the possibility.

I think this is a good point. There are just some things we, as humans, are incapable of comprehending. To follow Rene Descartes' method: anything that it is possible to doubt, we should doubt, in the pursuit of knowledge. Always look at the possibilities.

 

If you are content to accept that you are an insignificant coincidence and your life has no meaning, that is your choice. However, if I would prefer to believe that I was carefully crafted by a loving creator who simply wants me to experience the wonder and beauty of His creation and thank Him for it, and if I would prefer to believe that my life actually has a meaning instead of being an unnoticable blip on the scope of the universe... that is my choice.

[Rien]

Just to make sure I understand your question: you want to know why I believe the universe (which in my opinion does not include God, but that's another matter) is the finite creation of an infinite creator instead of itself being infinite?

Yes, in a way. The other part of the question concerns God's existence. Basically, what about God makes him/her/it eternal and the first cause if the universe (which is, in itself, "everything") is not? What makes God any different from the universe?

 

If, as you say, the universe itself is eternal, it must follow that everything in the universe is eternal. This obviously goes against the second law of thermodynamics, or the law of decay, which states that everything will eventually break down in time and that the usable energy in the universe is becoming less and less until there will eventually be none.

You lost me at the bolded statement. In a closed system (the universe being the ultimate example since it consists of "everything"), entropy (randomness) and enthalpy (heat/energy exchange) will have a net-gain/loss of zero. Energy and matter (essentially the same thing, anyway) do not simply "disappear", as is stated by the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy - they are merely converted or exchanged. In a closed system, like I said, nothing will escape so there will be no net-loss (and, of course, there will be no net-gain since energy and mass cannot be created in the first place). So, I can't say that I know what you're talking about; the "usable energy in the universe" cannot "become less and less" since the energy cannot escape from the closed system that is the universe. What can happen, though, is that the universe can expand (according to the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory, and as our universe is doing now) to a point at which the available energy becomes, for lack of a better phrase, so "spread out" that absolute zero is approached and matter in the universe comes to a state where it can hardly move for lack of kinetic energy. At that point, however, the process (which was initiated by a Big Bang) would begin to revert itself (due to accumulating gravitational forces) - resulting in a Big Crunch wherein all of existence would converge back into a single point and another Big Band would consequently occur (cyclic in nature, as previously mentioned).

 

As for the continual cycle of big bangs/big crunches, there is a severe lack of empirical correlation and testability with this theory. It is generally accepted among scientists that this theory is outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove and is considered more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. To believe such a theory, you are even going against such minds as Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein.

To the bolded statement: of course, this (the working of the universe) isn't exactly something we can study under laboratory conditions. :lol: We have, however, determined that the universe is expanded due to the affects of a Big Bang, and we can calculate that the rate of expansion cannot be sustained due to an ultimately finite amount of energy available in the universe and the increasingly powerful gravitational effects (caused by the expanding "size" of the universe) working against the expansion. There is far more information/research out there, and I'm not exactly a leading scientist qualified to explain all of this, but I believe that's the gist of it. Also, I'm not impressed by your appeal to authority - provide proof of their beliefs (not just "they say you're wrong") and I'll take it more seriously.

[Perakp]

Concerning the genesis and theory of evolution, mildly offtopic.

 

1. If evolution = true,

1.1 then adam & eve = false

1.1.1 then original sin = false

1.1.1.1 then either God made people sin

1.1.1.1.1 illogical with christian teachings and the bible

1.1.1.2 or people don't sin

1.1.1.2.1: illogical with christian teachings

1.2 then christianity = luls

 

2. If evolution = false

2.1 then Modern science = luls

 

 

For the BBT, I really couldn't care less.

 

hi

[Drags8696]

First off for those using standard means to calculate the length of the bible you must remember that the amount of time a day, week, month, year, and lifetime are only relative to specific time frames so it is truly impossible to calculate the length of time the bible covers. Also for the scientist out have you ever wondered how we could even have a big bang occur? because thermodynamics shows us that the universe is constantly losing energy and going towards a more stable state which means that everything, including us, will eventually become just a giant mass that has no energy and has degraded to compose of one element if not down to a smaller level of stability. So in some ways the existence of a higher being would give more evidence that something like this could occur. As for the dinosaurs issue we don't know what animals were placed on this earth originally or what original humans looked like so you can't disprove the existence of god with evolution either. Before i end i would like to point out a few things that had to occur perfectly for all the life that exist on earth today to be here that I can think of at this moment.

 

• How the moon was created (it really was quite a stretch for this to occur considering how scientist believe it occurred)
  
• salt and fresh water on earth (all life includes fish)
  
• plants as well as animals coexisting (exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide)
  
• placement from the sun
  
• sufficient atmosphere
  
• tilted and stable axis (semi related to moon)
  

 

Also on the issue of initial sin, this is a much more complicated issue that most Christians know or are willing to consider and while I can take you through the logical process and will if someone would like me to do so, at this moment I don't have time to post it in full length because I have to go to a class. If I can I will do so later or if I forget then you can pm me in game and remind me and I'll post it.

That is all i have for now.

[Will H]

In a nutshell, Genesis is a myth fasioned by very ignorant, superstitious people thousands of years ago.

Correction, Genesis is a myth fashioned by very intelligent, creative people and intended to be a metaphor for the creation of the fundamental ideas that exist in our lives, interpreted by very ignorant, superstitious people today as being literal. The Big Bang doesn't explain why there is good and evil in this world, where the physical laws of our universe come from, or where that original singularity came from.

 

What I can't understand, putting good and evil aside, is how a phyical law can come to be. There is absolutely no sense in the fact that the fastest speed an object can travel is 299,792,458 metres per second. Even if we use a different unit, we just get another number, where on earth (or anywhere else) did that value come from? We don't even have to consider the convienience of it, just it's mere 'existence'.

[Rien]

However, just because the probability is so small that we can't possibly accept or otherwise comprehend it, that doesn't mean that we are correct in denying the possibility.

I think this is a good point. There are just some things we, as humans, are incapable of comprehending. To follow Rene Descartes' method: anything that it is possible to doubt, we should doubt, in the pursuit of knowledge. Always look at the possibilities.

 

If you are content to accept that you are an insignificant coincidence and your life has no meaning, that is your choice. However, if I would prefer to believe that I was carefully crafted by a loving creator who simply wants me to experience the wonder and beauty of His creation and thank Him for it, and if I would prefer to believe that my life actually has a meaning instead of being an unnoticable blip on the scope of the universe... that is my choice.

I agree; creation debates almost always boil down to the personal beliefs held on both sides. For my part, while I don't believe there to be any "overarching" purpose to life, I do believe that we have the ability to create specific purposes for our lives on a personal level (we create our own meaning, in other words). While we might not mean much at all to the cosmos as a whole (a grain of sand on a beach, etc, etc...), it simply doesn't matter since we live a very limited (micro) existence. ---> So, while I may not have any influence on the universe, it doesn't matter since I live on Earth (and here I can make some meaning for my brief life), if you understand what I'm saying.

[Rien]

First off for those using standard means to calculate the length of the bible you must remember that the amount of time a day, week, month, year, and lifetime are only relative to specific time frames so it is truly impossible to calculate the length of time the bible covers.

This is something I've never understood. Unless you're being metaphorical, how are periods of time relative? A day is simply the term we apply to the event of a planet rotating once on its axis (roughly), and it's the same with the others; they're all based on natural phenomena which occur over a calculable period of time. :|

 

Correction, Genesis is a myth fashioned by very intelligent, creative people and intended to be a metaphor for the creation of the fundamental ideas that exist in our lives, interpreted by very ignorant, superstitious people today as being literal.

What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible then? How can you say that others are incorrect in their interpretations?

 

What I can't understand, putting good and evil aside, is how a phyical law can come to be. There is absolutely no sense in the fact that the fastest speed an object can travel is 299,792,458 metres per second. Even if we use a different unit, we just get another number, where on earth (or anywhere else) did that value come from? We don't even have to consider the convienience of it, just it's mere 'existence'.

The 'speed of light' is the speed at which light (energy) travels through a void (uninterrupted travel, basically). It's a measurable constant. An object would not be able to travel faster than the speed of light since gravity and other such forces would act on it and prevent it from reaching that speed. Nothing travels faster than light since it's pure energy traveling without obstructions, and since that speed has been calculaed to be 299,792,458 m/s, it stands to reason that nothing else can travel at speeds exceeding that figure.

[Zierro]

Anymore, I don't really believe in anything. Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, and every other religious groups are too sure of themselves in my opinion.

 

However, I do think that the Earth was created in a way completely different from any proposed theories.

 

I'm with you on that.

 

Oh and to Reb, I think the term you were looking for was false dichotomy, although false dilemma works as well.

[billybob323]

Energy and matter (essentially the same thing, anyway) do not simply "disappear", as is stated by the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy - they are merely converted or exchanged. In a closed system, like I said, nothing will escape so there will be no net-loss (and, of course, there will be no net-gain since energy and mass cannot be created in the first place).

I think you misunderstood. The second law of thermodynamics does not state that energy "escapes" the universe (which I agree is a closed system, obviously). It says that all energy and compounds break down into something less complex and less useful. So eventually everything will break down so much that it no longer has any use.

 

What can happen, though, is that the universe can expand ... to a point at which the available energy becomes, for lack of a better phrase, so "spread out" that absolute zero is approached and matter in the universe comes to a state where it can hardly move for lack of kinetic energy. At that point, however, the process (which was initiated by a Big Bang) would begin to revert itself (due to accumulating gravitational forces) - resulting in a Big Crunch wherein all of existence would converge back into a single point and another Big Bang would consequently occur

I don't understand how you can claim that when the energy in the universe approaches absolute zero it can suddenly gain enough energy to revert in on itself. Surely by the point that there is almost no energy left in the universe, all objects would be far enough away from each other that their gravitational pull can not reach far enough to pull them back. Explain this please?

 

Also, I'm not impressed by your appeal to authority - provide proof of their beliefs (not just "they say you're wrong") and I'll take it more seriously.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

-Stephen Hawking, in his book "The Beginning of Time"

I can not pretend to be able to explain his exact reasons, as he is a far more experienced scientist/astrophysicist than I could ever hope to be. But you could actually read his book if you were interested.

 

Yes, in a way. The other part of the question concerns God's existence. Basically, what about God makes him/her/it eternal and the first cause if the universe (which is, in itself, "everything") is not? What makes God any different from the universe?

I think this may be where we exit "science" and enter "philosophy" because there is no tangible evidence. Anselm, in his ontological argument, proposed that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." From this, he argued that it is greater to be infinite than to be finite and it is greater to exist than not to exist. Also, God is different from the universe because He is perfect and the universe obviously is not, because He chose to give us free will. However, He is not entirely different because He made us in His image and left His mark on all of creation.

 

I agree; creation debates almost always boil down to the personal beliefs held on both sides.

Yes, honestly I am waiting for the point where we all "agree to disagree." But since I believe it, I'm going to defend it, at the very least I will "plant a seed."

[Drags8696]

Ok so now that I am back i will explain what I have pulled out of Genesis but first I would like to quote a few things and comment.

 

My philosophy, and that of many Biblical scholars/non-idiotic Christians:

 

Why can't there be synergy between both?

 

So who's to say the two don't go hand in hand?

 

It's worth noting that the Big Bang theory was come up with solely by one scientist, Georges Lematire, in 1927 and that this man was a DEVOUT CATHOLIC PRIEST.

 

My advice for the topic: Stop thinking in black/white. Start realizing that in almost all things in this world, the gray area is much bigger.

 

I quite agree I'm mostly posting here to show that you cant really disprove either side.

 

Erm all the fossils they have, that have been accurately carbon dated that show clear progression of animals from one state to another. Eg monkey to man

Not to mention the DNA relations between many animals that show they came from the same source; plus within our lifetime there is clearly evidence of humans on average becoming taller.

 

Got to most old tudor or medieval buildings (not rich palces jsut like average houses) and even average height people have to duck under doorways, and the skeletons back this up

It is impossible to use evolution to disprove religion because the bible does not show everything that occurred in the beginning of time. Also find it humorous that while scientist and yourself state that DNA proves that we come from one source but you a.) often refuse to accept that this could be a Creator and b.) have yet to provide full evidence of an organism that existed that we all come from.

 

 

In a nutshell, Genesis is a myth fasioned by very ignorant, superstitious people thousands of years ago. The big bang theory is a logical conclusion drawn from several lines of astronomical evidence. Which is more likely to be true? That should be pretty obvious to the rational observer.

I believe that to some degree you like many other people take the bible word for word. It is a book and while the main points are all the same some things were changed so people could understand it better. You can see this today if you go buy a traditional bible and a more modernized bible or even 2 of the same you will see differences in wording.

 

The Big Bang theory has been researched by countless people around the world. It may not be true (if I'm not wrong, it's a logically placed guess, but I'm not sure on this one), but it sure as hell is a better logic than some random omnipotent guy making the world out of nothing. Where did he come from? <_<

This is the main reason people primarily believe in the Big Bang theory than Genesis (excluding a part of the religious people). Faith keeps people believing in the unexplainable. In fact, most religion, supernatural stuff was invented up as (laughably stupid) stories by certain people who could not explain something, such as how the universe was created.

(God I can't comprehend stuff right today. I just randomly spilled everything that was in my head without thinking. Meh.)

Well while the time line of the bible does not go perfectly with the BBT and Evolution, it does a fairly good job of explaining all of the individual stages of each part that those theories propose. Also science that is later proven true is often called absurd before it is proven.

 

Well

Concerning the genesis and theory of evolution, mildly offtopic.

 

1. If evolution = true,

1.1 then adam & eve = false

1.1.1 then original sin = false

1.1.1.1 then either God made people sin

1.1.1.1.1 illogical with christian teachings and the bible

1.1.1.2 or people don't sin

1.1.1.2.1: illogical with christian teachings

1.2 then christianity = luls

 

2. If evolution = false

2.1 then Modern science = luls

 

 

For the BBT, I really couldn't care less.

 

hi

Not necessarily on either side especially with the sin part as you will see later.

 

First off for those using standard means to calculate the length of the bible you must remember that the amount of time a day, week, month, year, and lifetime are only relative to specific time frames so it is truly impossible to calculate the length of time the bible covers.

This is something I've never understood. Unless you're being metaphorical, how are periods of time relative? A day is simply the term we apply to the event of a planet rotating once on its axis (roughly), and it's the same with the others; they're all based on natural phenomena which occur over a calculable period of time. :|

The bible is write for normal people to be able to read and understand. So the writer would want to change certain things to allow people to understand what happened more clearly. If you consider that in early civilization a day was over when you had completed a job or task, the rational reasoning for why this word now appears in biblical text makes clear sense.

 

Now on to my reasoning of Sin's creation:

 

Ok now i want everyone out there that doesn't believe in God to humor me and assume that there was one because the subject of his creation is not what we are focusing on here.

Now then we all know that God made Adam and Eve and that they were in Eden and yes they took the fruit and ate it, but this is not where we must start. First we must think about something, or should i say someone, else that is normally overlooked. The devil was an angle that turned against God and was cast into hell and this occurred prior to this event of the fruit being eaten. Now many agree that the serpent is intended to represent a demon or the devil himself in a disguised manner. Now i know that many of you are going to hark on me because of this point but this is to only show that the source of sin is not created by the fruit, possibly not even god or the devil. This pre-existence is also seen in that if the ability to sin did not exist prior to this act, the act would be impossible. They were presented with a choice and they chose. Now this by no means means that the fruit has no meaning. The fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". Now this is why they suddenly noticed their own nakedness after they ate the fruit because they now realized and understood what sins were and I also believe that they then began to understand how they could be used for self gain. The initial sin of man did not create sin, it only allowed man to become corrupt and sin without outside influence.

 

Now all my historical evidence is taken from biblical sources but the rest I derived myself so I admit I am probably not the best expert on this subject because I have not devoted my life to reading and studying it. This is because I also love math and science. Now as far as I am concerned God gave everyone a choice to do as they will in life so what ever you do is your choice.

 

p.s. Any1 wanting to try to bring up the idea that God can't exist because he can't know everything people will do if they have a choice, please go read the book Blink of an Eye by Ted Dekker, for I believe he does quite a good job showing how that is false, it's also an amazing piece of literature even for non-Christians.

[Giordano]

The vagueness of both Genesis and the Big Bang leads me to believe they're basically the same thing.

 

We're haven't left square one, yet.

[Wisp]

What a lot of people who argue that it must be intelligent design because the habitat here suits us perfectly, and the chances of it being how it is, or atleast able to support life as we know it is so slim that they think it must be a creator's work seem to miss is that the environment came first.

We evolved into the environment, it's not like we were always like this. Natural selection causes things to evolve to fit the habitat they live in. It's not like we were just thrown onto the earth and everything just happened to be like it is now.

 

I explained that terribly, but my point is, the chances of us being how we are, are incredibly slim, but if the environment was different, we would either be some other thing, or not be on that planet at all.

[Rien]

Energy and matter (essentially the same thing, anyway) do not simply "disappear", as is stated by the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy - they are merely converted or exchanged. In a closed system, like I said, nothing will escape so there will be no net-loss (and, of course, there will be no net-gain since energy and mass cannot be created in the first place).

I think you misunderstood. The second law of thermodynamics does not state that energy "escapes" the universe (which I agree is a closed system, obviously). It says that all energy and compounds break down into something less complex and less useful. So eventually everything will break down so much that it no longer has any use.

What can happen, though, is that the universe can expand ... to a point at which the available energy becomes, for lack of a better phrase, so "spread out" that absolute zero is approached and matter in the universe comes to a state where it can hardly move for lack of kinetic energy. At that point, however, the process (which was initiated by a Big Bang) would begin to revert itself (due to accumulating gravitational forces) - resulting in a Big Crunch wherein all of existence would converge back into a single point and another Big Bang would consequently occur

I don't understand how you can claim that when the energy in the universe approaches absolute zero it can suddenly gain enough energy to revert in on itself. Surely by the point that there is almost no energy left in the universe, all objects would be far enough away from each other that their gravitational pull can not reach far enough to pull them back. Explain this please?

 

I understand the thermodynamic laws. Eventually, as time passes and the universe continues to expand, mass/energy would slowly "disperse" throughout space (much like an ideal gas) and would degenerate into more "fundamental" components/particles. However, your underlined statement is incorrect; before they would be able to disperse to such a degree, the force exerted by the outward expansion of the universe would have become too weak (the kinetic energy driving the expansion would be approaching absolute zero, after all) to continue to overcome the gravitational attractive forces between the bits of matter, and the "clumping effect" would soon begin as a result (causing a Big Crunch in a matter of time).

 

 

Also, I'm not impressed by your appeal to authority - provide proof of their beliefs (not just "they say you're wrong") and I'll take it more seriously.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

-Stephen Hawking, in his book "The Beginning of Time"

I can not pretend to be able to explain his exact reasons, as he is a far more experienced scientist/astrophysicist than I could ever hope to be. But you could actually read his book if you were interested.

 

I'm not disputing that this (our) universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. If the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory is to be believed, our universe is merely the latest incarnation; undoubtably, the previous universe would have been entirely different in structure (its Big Bang forming different stars/planets from our own) before it collapsed in a Big Crunch. Time, being the "fourth dimension" and a component of the universe, probably functioned unconventionally (compared to how we know it) as well. I would have to read his book, as you say, to understand his meaning, but (unfortunately) I highly doubt I would understand anything written by Hawking. :lol:

 

 

Yes, in a way. The other part of the question concerns God's existence. Basically, what about God makes him/her/it eternal and the first cause if the universe (which is, in itself, "everything") is not? What makes God any different from the universe?

I think this may be where we exit "science" and enter "philosophy" because there is no tangible evidence. Anselm, in his ontological argument, proposed that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." From this, he argued that it is greater to be infinite than to be finite and it is greater to exist than not to exist. Also, God is different from the universe because He is perfect and the universe obviously is not, because He chose to give us free will. However, He is not entirely different because He made us in His image and left His mark on all of creation.

 

This is where we begin to divulge in thought. In my case, I can conceive of nothing greater than the universe itself, since it is quite literally everything. What is "infinite" and "finite" in reference to the universe, after all? By definition, the universe consists of everything, so there is nothing "more" that can exist outside it (as there is no "outside" to begin with). In the same way, what is "perfect"? (I honestly don't know what you mean by that description. Can you give me an example?) 'One last question: Assuming there is an Architect, why would he/she/it care about Mankind? We are but one species of the many on Earth, and I'm sure (considering the odds) that there are/have been other living organisms spread throughout the universe. We are less than a spec within the universe, so what makes us "special" or deserving of attention from an infinitely more powerful being?

 

 

In a nutshell, Genesis is a myth fasioned by very ignorant, superstitious people thousands of years ago. The big bang theory is a logical conclusion drawn from several lines of astronomical evidence. Which is more likely to be true? That should be pretty obvious to the rational observer.

I believe that to some degree you like many other people take the bible word for word. It is a book and while the main points are all the same some things were changed so people could understand it better. You can see this today if you go buy a traditional bible and a more modernized bible or even 2 of the same you will see differences in wording.

 

This brings up the problem of interpretation; what is meant to be literal and what is metaphorical? If theologians can't even seem to agree, then how are people to know what to believe? Countless wars have been fought over differing interpretations, so why, if the Bible was divinely inspired, wouldn't God see this in foresight and have the Bible be a bit more defined? Whatever the case, the Bible, along with all other religious writings for that matter, are hardly accredited source materials (unlike scientific texts), so you can hopefully understand why agnostics/atheists are highly skeptical when the only "evidence" of God existing rests on writings originating a couple thousand years ago.

 

 

Well while the time line of the bible does not go perfectly with the BBT and Evolution, it does a fairly good job of explaining all of the individual stages of each part that those theories propose. Also science that is later proven true is often called absurd before it is proven.

 

You'll have to explain this (underlined), if you will. Also, it would take a rather poor scientist to call any scientific hypothesis "absurd". The scientific method encourages open-mindedness and experimentation, so any true scientist wouldn't draw premature conclusions, anyway.

 

 

The bible is write for normal people to be able to read and understand. So the writer would want to change certain things to allow people to understand what happened more clearly. If you consider that in early civilization a day was over when you had completed a job or task, the rational reasoning for why this word now appears in biblical text makes clear sense.

 

Mhm, I understand. However, I was driving at the point that units of measure are not "relative" as the other poster was suggesting (to give an example, it would be similar to saying that 1,000 years ago, a day would last for 30 hours - that's relative and incorrect (at least for our planet)). You're talking about the measures of time used in the Bible being metaphorical (a work day or the time required to complete a single task), which I made sure to name as an exception. :P