Big Bang Controversy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanRiteTeen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RomanRiteTeen

Guest
Why do so many Christians seem against the Big Bang theory? Usually when it is refereed to, it is labeled as the misguided view of agnostics and heterodox Catholics.

The first to propose the idea was a Roman Catholic Priest! His name was Fr. Lemaitre. He was of highly scientific mind and also a man of the Faith.

So, I guess my question is, what’s the Big Deal?
 
I think the theorized Big Bang is beautiful and awesome, and a clear pointer to a Creator. Much more so than a steady-state universe. And last I heard, those who calculate such things have determined that there is not enough matter in the universe to cause it to eventually collapse and, hypothetically, start again with another Big Bang. So it appears, as I understand the current thinking, that the universe is a one-time thing. More evidence of a Creator.
 
40.png
RomanRiteTeen:
Why do so many Christians seem against the Big Bang theory? Usually when it is refereed to, it is labeled as the misguided view of agnostics and heterodox Catholics.

The first to propose the idea was a Roman Catholic Priest! His name was Fr. Lemaitre. He was of highly scientific mind and also a man of the Faith.

So, I guess my question is, what’s the Big Deal?
Click to expand...
The “big deal” is that it has been hijacked by aethistic physicists in an attempt to remold the theory to explain away the need for a creator God.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
The “big deal” is that it has been hijacked by aethistic physicists in an attempt to remold the theory to explain away the need for a creator God.
Click to expand...
That’s what seems so illogical to me. From the original standpoint, the Theory of the Big Bang is incomplete without a creator to initiate things. How do they try to fill in these gaps?
 
40.png
RomanRiteTeen:
That’s what seems so illogical to me. From the original standpoint, the Theory of the Big Bang is incomplete without a creator to initiate things. How do they try to fill in these gaps?
Click to expand...
Quantum theory and spontaneous generation of sub-atomic particles.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Quantum theory and spontaneous generation of sub-atomic particles.
Click to expand...
So is it your assertion that quantum theory and spontaneous generation of subatomic particles are assertions without evidence backing them? That some priesthood of physicists were concerned with the possible theological underpinnings of the Big Bang and so manufactured these explanations, somehow gaining the complicity of many Christian astrophysicists along the way?
 
I saw a bumper sticker not too long ago:

The Big Bang Theory: God said “Bang” and the world was made!
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Quantum theory and spontaneous generation of sub-atomic particles.
Click to expand...
Quantum theory actually supports a creator as it requires an observer outside its own frame of reference.
 
That’s what seems so illogical to me. From the original standpoint, the Theory of the Big Bang is incomplete without a creator to initiate things. How do they try to fill in these gaps?
Click to expand...
Honestly, they haven’t filled in the gaps too well, IMO, but it’s important to remember that, from a scientific perspective, God is never a legitimate answer to a scientific question. It’s absolutely correct for these scientists to pursue a non-theistic answer to the questions posed by the Big Bang Theory. As it stands now, the Big Bang appears to have been very real, but beyond a few microseconds after it the whole thing becomes philosophy rather than science; there’s no solid reach for science beyond speculation after a certain point.
 
40.png
RomanRiteTeen:
Why do so many Christians seem against the Big Bang theory? Usually when it is refereed to, it is labeled as the misguided view of agnostics and heterodox Catholics.

The first to propose the idea was a Roman Catholic Priest! His name was Fr. Lemaitre. He was of highly scientific mind and also a man of the Faith.

So, I guess my question is, what’s the Big Deal?
Click to expand...
most Christians don’t have a problem with it at all

is is only a small but unfortunately vocal, minority that seems to object and that is mostly a North American phenomenon

personally I blame the schools
it is the same crowd the has a kneejerk reaction about evolution
 
It should be a controversy until proven without a doubt.

Science is limited by its own definition - naturalism. It’s amazing scientists that are naturally curious will not look outside their own domain to find the truth.

From Liberalism is a SIn

Probably the most important spiritual fact lost to the majority of people today—a fact that makes Liberalism so plausible—is the Catholic distinction between the **natural and the supernatural orders—between natural ends and means and supernatural ones. **Those today who entertain the fuzzy thinking of Liberalism do so largely because they have lost cognizance of this distinction. Heaven, according to Catholic teaching, is a supernatural state, an end or objective above man and beyond his ability to attain, a goal which man on his own cannot achieve. It is the presence of God.

Between her and the people, it seeks to dig a deeper and deeper abyss of hate, prejudice and calumny. NATURALISM, THE DENIAL OF THE SUPERNATURAL, IT INCULCATES EVERYWHERE. To divorce the entire life of the people from her influence—by the institution of civil marriage, by civil burial and divorce, by teaching the insidious doctrine that society as such has no religious relations or obligations and that man as a social and civil being is absolutely independent of God and His Church and that religion is a mere private opinion to be entertained or not entertained, as one pleases such is the program, such is the effect, and such, in turn, is the cause of Liberalism. But the most pernicious—because the most successful and lasting—propagator of Liberalism is:
 
Science absolutely must be naturalistic because the scientific principle can’t be steadily applied to the supernatural order. This doesn’t mean that science is rooted in naturalism as you’ve defined it. Scientists can recognize that a supernatural order exists without delving into it. In fact, the Church absolutely depends on the naturalistic outlook of science for the verification of miracles; only by ruling out the natural order can we be certain that something supernatural has occured. This is why the Church demands rigorous scientific testing before declaring a supposed miracle as official.

The Big Bang has pretty much been proven without a doubt within all natural means available. There is no natural objection to the Big Bang Theory that both stands against it and offers a better explaination of the evidence. There is no such thing as “proving without a doubt” in science, only proving within all available natural parameters. The Big Bang Theory satifies that requirement.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Science absolutely must be naturalistic because the scientific principle can’t be steadily applied to the supernatural order. This doesn’t mean that science is rooted in naturalism as you’ve defined it. Scientists can recognize that a supernatural order exists without delving into it. In fact, the Church absolutely depends on the naturalistic outlook of science for the verification of miracles; only by ruling out the natural order can we be certain that something supernatural has occured. This is why the Church demands rigorous scientific testing before declaring a supposed miracle as official.

The Big Bang has pretty much been proven without a doubt within all natural means available. There is no natural objection to the Big Bang Theory that both stands against it and offers a better explaination of the evidence. There is no such thing as “proving without a doubt” in science, only proving within all available natural parameters. The Big Bang Theory satifies that requirement.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!

However, today’s scientists are bent on naturalism.

The Big Bang is being questioned as more is known.
 
40.png
wanerious:
So is it your assertion that quantum theory and spontaneous generation of subatomic particles are assertions without evidence backing them?
Click to expand...
quantum theory has lots of evidence backing it up - more than any physical theory in human history.

it’s determining the best interpretation of the data of quantum mechanics that is still an open question.

for example, hawkings’ attempt to model the initial singularity in a manner that obviates the need to appeal to a prior cause depends on the reification (and simultaneous spatialization) of imaginary time; given the facial absurdity of the idea, it’s obvious that hawkings, at least, is working on a non-theistic agenda.
 
The bible actually supports the Big Bang theory THOUSANDS of years before the Big Bang theory was even introduced.

Scripture tells us that God created light on the first day and the sun and the stars on the fourth day. Where was the light coming from on the first day if the Sun and stars weren’t made until the fourth day?

Very simple, when the Big Bang happened, it released photons and energy in all directions. The place was brighter than a trillion suns.

How did the ancient scripture writers know that light came before the sun & the stars were created? Maybe it’s because their writings were inspired by God who was there when He was making everything.
 
Big Bang sure sounds like Genesis to me!

Scientific truth and theological truth can never truly contradict each other since Truth must be self-consistent and perfect. There are apparent contradictions only due to our inability to understand with our imperfect minds and limited capacity for understanding. Whenever there is an apparent contradiction, we must seek to reconcile them best we can and then chalk it up to our own limitation. Einstein knew this.
 
Hawkings most definately has an anti-theistic agenda, and I have a problem with that aspect of his work. While I agree that science should NEVER settle for “God did it” as the answer to a question, dogmatically fighting against theism can lead one to put certain blinders on. Science should simply give a shrug to questions of God and the supernatural, not devote time to actively eliminating the supernatural. Such an attitude doesn’t do much to foster scientific advancement.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
The “big deal” is that it has been hijacked by aethistic physicists in an attempt to remold the theory to explain away the need for a creator God.
Click to expand...
The fact that a correct theory that is perfectly compliant with our belief as God as Creator, has been hijacked and misrepresented, does not negate it’s validity.
 
Personally I don’t know how God created matter out of nothing. For at one time only God existed in a black void. It is just something beyond our pea brains to understand. I don’t even understand what or who God is in his spirit form? He could be an alien of immense power. Someday we will know.
 
40.png
gladtobe:
…I don’t even understand what or who God is in his spirit form? He could be an alien of immense power. Someday we will know.
Click to expand...
😃 An alien who trancends all things of course, who is all-powerful and all-knowing-- creator of all things with no equal.
Who exists in three persons with distinct identity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Who’s only son was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a Virgin.
Born, died, rose, and ascended back into the realm from whence He came.
He will come to judge the living and dead and all salvation depends on Him, who works through the Church he established on earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top