Big Bang Theory

[jimmijamm]

I know there are certain things of science that our awesome Catholic church says that if it happened then God of course had a part to play in it. Please forgive my ignorance on the whole topic of the Big Bang but does our faith believe in the Big Bang or not? I read the tracks about Adam and Eve and the beginning and it touched on it but was not definitive. Just a simple yes or no with a little explanation would be just fine or a link that I could read more on would be great. Thanks

 

[Smart30]

Depending on if you are a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist, you have your own big bang.

Young Earth Creationists are forced to make God a magic man who did everything in only a few thousand years, this is denying God any majesty and simply makes him a magic-man with no personal relationship with mankind other than as a Creator. In a way, this is a big bang.

The Old Earth Creationist accepts modern science along with the Bible (Bible first then Science) and points to the big bang as proof of a transcendent being or agent, which we all call God. It shows that we are very special and so is this universe and in fact there is a true chance that other universes exist. Evolution never happened, instead God simply kept making creatures during the six days of Creation.

To me, we are living in the 7th day of Creation, nothing is being created and the prior six days are long periods of times (billions).

Astronomy and Physics point to God and ensure that His Majesty will be seen by everyone, naturalists twist the evidence and pictures to make it fit their hypothesis.

I am an Old Earth Creationist, and I encourage you to listen to Dr. Hugh Ross on this issue:

www.reasons.org

We’ve got a picture of the beginning of the universe.

 

[Luke65]

No, the Big Bang theory is not a part of our faith. But who cares? It has been falsified by numerous lines of evidence. Here’s one:

Big Bang’s Afterglow Fails Intergalactic ‘Shadow’ Test

 

[DOShea]

You are not required by any Teaching to believe in the Big Bang. Right now, that is the only plausible explanation science can come up with to explain most of the things we see in the universe. But it has limits. The mathematics of it only work to certain point, as does any formula that approaches zero or infinity. There are certain limits of physical laws that, if they continued to work all the way back to just before the Big Bang, would preclude it from ever happening. Science answers this by saying the laws did not exist until some finite time AFTER the BB - which allows the laws to work and the math to work - but offers no proof of it, only that it would “have to be” that way for the present schema of BB to work.

The mass in the universe does not all add up to what it needs to be. There are galaxies way too far out in space for them to travel that far using nominal ages of the universe. In other words, if the universe is old enough for those galaxies to be where they are, we would not still be here. We are here… so… something got them out there that far. What was it? The current idea is that they initially moved outward (from a BB) much faster than they travel today. Problem with that is, if they kept going at that speed, they’d be farther away than they presently are. Therefore the only way it could happen is that they moved out fast and something acted as a “brake,” some mass gravitationally pulling on them to slow them down to the rate of speed they move today.

This is the mass we cannot account for. There have been many ideas, string theory, dark matter (invisible mass), etc. but we simply do not know at this point. BB is the best model to explain it all in some kind of physical sense, but the theory has many limitations science hasn’t filled in yet, if they ever will.

Equally silly is to depend solely on scientific examination to define God or His power. If you hold to the idea that there is absolutely no way God could have made the universe in 6 actual days, then your God is not omnipotent, He is a slave to mankind’s thoughts and discovery. Mankind has yet to offer a theory on how dead are raised, hosts turn into flesh and blood, miraculous cures happen, so there is no reason to think they own the Creation time line.

There is no “preferred” belief. You can choose to believe Creation in your own way so long as you follow the guidelines given by the Church as regards evolution.

 

[tjm190]

The big bang is not in conflict with our faith. And contrary to the above poster, even Richard Lieu, the leader of the study in question, has admitted that his study is not evidence against the big bang, but rather proof that we are still very unsure about the nature of galaxy clusters.

 

[Luke65]

The big bang is not in conflict with our faith. And contrary to the above poster, even Richard Lieu, the leader of the study in question, has admitted that his study is not evidence against the big bang, but rather proof that we are still very unsure about the nature of galaxy clusters.

Actually, he said it “means the Big Bang is blown away, or… there is something else going on”. This is nothing new. Big Bang predictions get blown away on a regular basis. But since the whole mainstream scientific community has put all their chips on the theory, teaching it to the world as fact for decades now, careers and reputations riding on it, they simply say, “something else is going on.” But don’t think Dr. Lieu is your friend, he is also one of the scientists who discovered another line of evidence that contradicts Big Bang predictions:

Hubble Pictures Too Crisp, Challenging Theories of Time and Space

“One challenge for theorists, if the studies by Lieu and Ragazzoni are on track, is that the instant of the Big Bang would involve an infinitely hot and dense condition – something current theory does not allow.”

I can’t wait for the new and improved version of the Big Bang that allows for an “infinitely hot and dense condition”.

 

[seagal]

As I understand it, the Catholic Church says only that God created the world (and everything else); she leaves it to the scientists to figure out how that was accomplished.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

The Big Bang Theory was proposed by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, Belgian Catholic priest and scientist.

amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

The Pope was elated.

" *Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”* "

Lemaître alongside Einstein:


Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XXI):
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/pics/Pope_Pius_XII1.jpg

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

Despite any impression my previous post could have made, the Big Bang is not a “Catholic” theory, not even a theistic theory, it is a scientific theory.

Nevertheless, it does bring a certain level of support to the point of view that our universe was created at some point. Before that, non-believers would hang on to the so-called “steady state model”, by which the universe, somehow, was “already there”, so to speak. Something like “Who created the Universe?” “I dunno, it was already there when I found it!”. In any case, that’s just more atheist-theist soap opera, as I call it. From the scientific standpoint, these theories stand alone and should explain things or be discarded. The Big Bang theory seems to be definitely here to stay…

Big Bang is not part of R-Catholic teaching, and I guess rightly so, after the Galileo embarrassment, when Cardinal Bellarmino and his group of 11 Pope-appointed theologians determined that the Earth being the center of the universe was scriptural and theologically acceptable, versus Galileo’s claim that the sun was the center of the universe. Both Galileo and the Church theologians were mistaken as neither are the center of the universe. Bellarmino was later made Doctor of the Church, I believe. Ouch. Really ouch.

 

[VociMike]

The Catholic faith does not particularly believe in one scientific theory or another. What it does believe, and teach, is that the world around us is knowable in some real sense through our God-given senses and intellect, and that in this way God, as the creator of that world, is also knowable.

 

[Luke65]

Despite any impression my previous post could have made, the Big Bang is not a “Catholic” theory, not even a theistic theory, it is a scientific theory.

Nevertheless, it does bring a certain level of support to the point of view that our universe was created at some point. Before that, non-believers would hang on to the so-called “steady state model”, by which the universe, somehow, was “already there”, so to speak. Something like “Who created the Universe?” “I dunno, it was already there when I found it!”. In any case, that’s just more atheist-theist soap opera, as I call it. From the scientific standpoint, these theories stand alone and should explain things or be discarded. The Big Bang theory seems to be definitely here to stay…

Big Bang is not part of R-Catholic teaching, and I guess rightly so, after the Galileo embarrassment, when Cardinal Bellarmino and his group of 11 Pope-appointed theologians determined that the Earth being the center of the universe was scriptural and theologically acceptable, versus Galileo’s claim that the sun was the center of the universe. Both Galileo and the Church theologians were mistaken as neither are the center of the universe. Bellarmino was later made Doctor of the Church, I believe. Ouch. Really ouch.

That’s Saint Bellarmine to you. And if the truth hurts, that’s your problem. It’s not the problem of this holy Saint and great Doctor of the Church; nor is it the problem of the Bride of Christ. It’s only a problem for those who refuse to love the truth.

 

[liquidpele]

That’s Saint Bellarmine to you. And if the truth hurts, that’s your problem. It’s not the problem of this holy Saint and great Doctor of the Church; nor is it the problem of the Bride of Christ. It’s only a problem for those who refuse to love the truth.

Are you implying that the church was correct and the center of the universe is the Earth?

 

[Luke65]

Are you implying that the church was correct and the center of the universe is the Earth?

What does it matter to you? You only accept science, and science can’t prove whether the universe is geocentric or not. So you’re left to your own fallible opinion.

 

[tjm190]

Lieu concedes this is a possibility. “That I do buy,” he said. “I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday.”

You believe your interperetation of the data is superior to the man who discovered it?

 

[tjm190]

What does it matter to you? You only accept science, and science can’t prove whether the universe is geocentric or not. So you’re left to your own fallible opinion.

True. It is completely reasonable to believe that everything science has uncovered about the cosmos since the 16th century has been false, with no major evidence.

Of course, if that were true, 6.5439676610^19 is roughly the distance in meters neptune would to travel in one day, or rather 86,400 seconds. This would mean neptune travels at a speed of 7.5740366410^14 meters per second, due soley to the Earth’s gravitational pull. That’s quite a few degrees of magnitude more than the speed of light- so apparently we can throw our understanding of physics out the window. And that’s just neptune- an object in our solar system!

 

[Luke65]

Lieu concedes this is a possibility. “That I do buy,” he said. “I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday.”

You believe your interperetation of the data is superior to the man who discovered it?

My interpretation is that the Big Bang theory is contradicted by numerous lines of evidence, thus the theory has been falsified scientifically. But am I surprised that Lieu is not “prepared to accept” “doomsday”? Please! Are you prepared to accept Doomsday for the Big Bang?

 

[tjm190]

My interpretation is that the Big Bang theory is contradicted by numerous lines of evidence, thus the theory has been falsified scientifically. But am I surprised that Lieu is not “prepared to accept” “doomsday”? Please! Are you prepared to accept Doomsday for the Big Bang?

Certain aspects of the theory not stack up well against some other obersations if that’s what you mean- but the evidence for is greater than the evidence against, as Lieu clearly states.

 

[Luke65]

True. It is completely reasonable to believe that everything science has uncovered about the cosmos since the 16th century has been false, with no major evidence.

Do you enjoy beating the pulp out of straw men? I utilized much of the latest scientific discoveries to demonstrate that the evidence is consistent with a geocentric universe on another thread starting here.

Of course, if that were true, 6.5439676610^19 is roughly the distance in meters neptune would to travel in one day, or rather 86,400 seconds. This would mean neptune travels at a speed of 7.5740366410^14 meters per second, due soley to the Earth’s gravitational pull. That’s quite a few degrees of magnitude more than the speed of light- so apparently we can throw our understanding of physics out the window. And that’s just neptune- an object in our solar system!

Didn’t you notice the anti-geocentrist scientist on that thread, which you were on, acknowledged that the universe could be rotating at a velocity far in excess of the speed of light?

 

[Luke65]

Certain aspects of the theory not stack up well against some other obersations if that’s what you mean- but the evidence for is greater than the evidence against, as Lieu clearly states.

It only takes one line of evidence to falsify a theory, regardless of how much evidence it has in support.

 

[tjm190]

Do you enjoy beating the pulp out of straw men? I utilized much of the latest scientific discoveries to demonstrate that the evidence is consistent with a geocentric universe on another thread starting here.

Didn’t you notice the anti-geocentrist scientist on that thread, which you were on, acknowledged that the universe could be rotating at a velocity far in excess of the speed of light?

Space-time can in fact move faster than the speed of light. This of course would present new problems- of course, this would neccesitate that all objects “orbit” the Earth in the same direction, which is of course not true. Unless space-time is orbiting in opposite directions simoltaneously.

Oh, and as I recall the faster than light “spinning” of space time occurs only in and around “spinning” blackholes. Is the Earth a blackhole?