Big Bang doesn't imply a beginning to the universe?

[Freddy]

I study neurobiology at college, for reference.
They tell me I’m supposed to believe in evolution, that man came from apes.

It appears to be not a very good college. You are right. It is bulldust. Humans did not evolve from apes. Tell them they have that wrong. You might get a few credits.

 

[OurGodIsWithUs]

I think I will. I don’t roll over when I’m told to.
I think for myself and accept only what I think is rational and in-line with my faith.

Just because most people agree with it doesn’t mean it’s true. Besides, what’s the point of your comment? It seems more like an insult rather than answering OPs question.

 

[Freddy]

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

I didn’t respond to any of the points you made because the very first line indicated that you didn’t know even the most basic of facts about evolution.

If you show that that might have been an aberration and you do understand it then we could investigate the matter together. But if you don’t understand it then we would both be wasting our time.

 

[Freddy]

I think I will. I don’t roll over when I’m told to.
I think for myself and accept only what I think is rational and in-line with my faith.

Just because most people agree with it doesn’t mean it’s true. Besides, what’s the point of your comment? It seems more like an insult rather than answering OPs question.

My comment was simply pointing out that whoever told you that we evolved from apes is wrong. I hope you put them straight. And the fact that we have a common ancestor with apes shouldn’t detract from your faith either. You will find many honest and earnest Catholics on this forum who have no problems with Mr. Darwins theory.

And yes, just because most people believe it to be true does not make it true.

 

[EndTimes]

“The idea that there was a singularity in the beginning that eventually became all of this by sudden inflation (i.e. the Big Bang) is simply wrong according to modern physics.”

That idea is wrong
because it still remains a speculated yet unproven notion
within the world of Astro-Physics.

And as per the usual with some some folks who are attracted to scientism for its (False) posit claiming - Man’s ‘science’ of the strictly Physical Realm – and God and Spirit cannot dwell together within their False imagined Either God OR Science “domain”. . As if they’re Competing against one another. … NOT!

Meanwhile Man’s Science Neither Knows HOW the Universe Formed
Nor How LIFE emerged from Non-Life …

Oh yeah. There’s Theories Galore on both those Questions

MeanWhile, GOD Exists… and wants all to Love Love and Neighbor…

JESUS is a NAME that shall NEVER be eradicated.

)_

_

 

[Anrakyr]

To quote a great video I say once:

“The nature of the universe is known. The meaning is subjective.”

 

[Welshrabbit]

Nobody knows.

Your position seems to align more with the agnostic one and is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

I’m talking about the militant, smug, Reddit -frequenting, Richard Dawkins style atheist who knows for a fact that God doesn’t exist.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Nobody knows.

Your position seems to align more with the agnostic one and is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

I’m talking about the militant, smug, Reddit -frequenting, Richard Dawkins style atheist who knows for a fact that God doesn’t exist.

You should read more about Dawkins. He is less sure than I am. He actually classes himself as an agnostic (whereas I describe myself as an atheist). He has little time for religion but his main bugbear is fundamentalism. Willfull ignorance drives him to distraction. Him and me both.

 

[Welshrabbit]

His case is strange because he does at least consider himself an agnostic in that he can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Again, that is a reasonable position that I don’t agree with. He also argues for atheistic evangelization (or at least he used to). My apologies for classifying him incorrectly if I have.

I think we’re not on the same page when it comes to definitions here, Freddy. I am defining atheist as someone who knows for a fact that there is no God and agnostic as someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in God but can’t rule out the possibility.

Are my definitions off?

 

[Vico]

The idea that there was a singularity in the beginning that eventually became all of this by sudden inflation (i.e. the Big Bang) is simply wrong according to modern physics. …

Within the expanding universe cosmology there are theories that are unsubstantiated: singularity and bounce (with variations of single bounce or endless bounce).

 

[goout]

…
As theists, how are we to respond to this since it is in our faith to believe that God alone has always existed and that it is he who created the universe ex nihilo. Could science really be on the verge of disproving the need for a creator?

As theists, we would respond that science can never “prove everything” and can never provide ultimate causation or the source of being.

Think about this for a second: if science could do that, there would be no need for science. It’s in the nature of science that it doesn’t make itself the end of all things, but rather science enjoys the gradual discovery of the unknown that gives it meaning and purpose.

 

[EndTimes]

“It’s in the nature of science that it doesn’t make itself the end of all things, but rather science enjoys the gradual discovery of the unknown that gives it meaning and purpose”.

That almost comes across as being akin to representing ‘science’ in a Proper Noun manner - not only as an entity - somehow separate from humans - and with the fondness is it? - as if an almost “god” …

MeanWhile - ‘science’ is no such ‘thing’

“science” issues forth from Man and Man alone…

Man’s Quest for Knowledge of Everything: Good and Evil drives that portion of civilization.

Accoutrements of Wars including Nukes?

A thank you nod - also goeth forth to scientists who’ve built them…

 

[goout]

“It’s in the nature of science that it doesn’t make itself the end of all things, but rather science enjoys the gradual discovery of the unknown that gives it meaning and purpose”.

That almost comes across as being akin to representing ‘science’ in a Proper Noun manner - not only as an entity - somehow separate from humans - and with the fondness is it? - as if an almost “god” …

MeanWhile - ‘science’ is no such ‘thing’

I’m confused. How does the quote hint at idolatry?

 

[OurGodIsWithUs]

Thank you for clarifying!

And no, its not that I don’t understand. I’ve been exposed to Darwin’s theories of evolution, but I refuse to believe that humans descended from apes. I regard it as a system God put in place to sustain living organisms on earth, which must adapt to ever-changing conditions, but that humans are exempt.

Peace, brother!

 

[EndTimes]

“It’s in the nature of science that it doesn’t make itself the end of all things, but rather science enjoys the gradual discovery of the unknown that gives it meaning and purpose”.

=====

That almost comes across as being akin to representing ‘science’ in a Proper Noun manner - not only as an entity - somehow separate from humans - and with the fondness is it? - as if an almost “god” …

MeanWhile - ‘science’ is no such ‘thing’

+++

“I’m confused. How does the quote hint at idolatry?”

+++

NOTE: I’m not directing this at you personally - for I’d think that that quote is not necessarily original. However, besides that. ;

Replace Science with “Man’s Quest for Knowledge”.

It is Man and Only Man whom initiates said Quest by whatever label one chooses to employ.

Man’s science should never be somehow presented and potentially viewed as being any sort of a figurative entity - As when “science” is sometimes presented as being thoroughly distinct from Man

And Worse, - when yes, as If it’s a figurative Idol of sorts - from which all Truth pours forth from

This is clearly reflected in the beliefs and claims - of those who are led by the premises of Scientism which Places Man’s Science in Opposition to God / Religion - as if IT’S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER.

 

[rom]

Not sure I follow. Matter exists, right? Matter could as easily not exist.

Why does it exist as opposed to not exist?

Who/what caused that matter to exist?

Your questions are very good and they do make sense even to the atheists. They just choose to ignore it. But ignoring or dismissing the question does not make the question disappear. They just leave it unanswered.

The first question as to why it exists, as I said, makes no sense to me. The second, as to what caused it to exist (the ‘who caused it’ makes no sense to me either), is: Nobody knows.

You can choose to ignore the question, if you like, but it is incorrect to say that the question makes no sense. The only questions that really make no sense are those that don’t mean anything, such as the question, “Why is biology perpendicular to music?” All the terms of the question are meaningful, but the question itself makes no sense because it is just a meaningless juxtaposition of meaningful words. But the question “Why does matter exist?” is a meaningful question that scholars have attempted to answer for ages.

Now, to the question, “What or who caused it to exist,” you said, “Nobody knows.” But how did you know that? Did you listen to everybody and hear what each has to say?

I’m incapable of imagining something coming from nothing (I’m actually incapable of imagining nothing) so I have a tendancy to think that existence is eternal. Never ending.

Of course, existence is eternal, because existence is the very nature of God. I think that what you meant to say is that you tend to think that matter is eternal, right? Actually, that is also what many scientists think. They don’t prove it, though. They just postulate it as true without proof.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Thank you for your compliment, rom!

 

[itsjustme]

Matter exists, right? Matter could as easily not exist.

Why does it exist as opposed to not exist?

Who/what caused that matter to exist?

The highlighted parts are the parts that don’t make sense.

You can’t just arbitrarily say that matter could easily not exist. At least present some argument as to why matter could easily not exist.

And the second questionable part, as to who/what caused matter to exist, is completely dependent upon establishing the first questionable part, that it’s possible for matter not to exist in the first place.

If you can’t prove the first part, then the second part is superfluous.

So taken as an argument, it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Welshrabbit]

It’s binary. Existence = yes.

You, I, the Earth, the planets, the stars, etc. are here and we exist. We don’t HAVE to exist.

Matter could easily not exist if there were no God. Something created that matter and did so for a reason. Matter cannot be created from nowhere without a metaphysical explanation of some kind…unless you can show it can.

 

[itsjustme]

You, I, the Earth, the planets, the stars, etc. are here and we exist. We don’t HAVE to exist.

Now that’s a different argument entirely. You, me, the planets, and stars are what a metaphysicist might refer to as “forms”. The fact that the forms that matter takes could conceivably not exist, isn’t the same as arguing that the matter itself could not exist.

Matter could easily not exist if there were no God. Something created that matter and did so for a reason.

Conjecture

Matter cannot be created from nowhere without a metaphysical explanation of some kind

Again, you’re assuming that matter was created.