Do you believe in the Big Bang? (Merged) Is it Catholic dogma?

[oldcatholicguy]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_N6APHtFPW...AA3A/SKdid7uzgAE/s400/Bible+vs.+Evolution.png

That would be because the Bible isn’t a science or a history book.

 

[Ignatius]

That would be because the Bible isn’t a science or a history book.

Ah, I’m glad to see that at least we agree on some things.

 

[Aloysium]

The Economist recently had an article about research into the expansion phase of the Big Bang: economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21620049-dramatic-recent-discovery-physics-looking-rather-dodgy-dust-dust

Besides discussing some minutae (imho) of what occurred in the early universe, it talks about some of the realities of science.
It is clear that science is more than a view of our world inculcated into young minds in high school and university classes and textbooks.
It is an economic, political and social activity. Besides the forces of honour, more influential are those of power and money.
The magazine decries the lack of cooperation between different research groups, but it is that very competition that keeps them honest.
If everyone were working together, there would be less reason to disprove findings.
Does it really matter if what appeared to the discovery of ripples caused by gravity turns out to be artifact caused by dust in our galaxy?
The price of gas, milk, bread, your income, the entire world remains the same, whether it is true or not. Scientists get paid, have fights with their spouses, deal with their kids successes and failures all the same.
I don’t know where I’m going with this. I suppose it is to explain in another way why I could not answer the question.

 

[Solus_vistor]

The price of gas, milk, bread, your income, the entire world remains the same, whether it is true or not.

There are many questions of philosophy and theology the answers to which leave the price of gas, milk, bread, your income, the entire world the same. Nevertheless, some of us still ask these questions and seek or accept answers.

 

[Aloysium]

There are many questions of philosophy and theology the answers to which leave the price of gas, milk, bread, your income, the entire world the same. Nevertheless, some of us still ask these questions and seek or accept answers.

All social systems have some sort of philosophical, moral and religious foundation allowing them to function and provide meaning.
One’s world can be altered in very dramatic ways as the values of a society change.
These are important.
That there exists a vault above us or gravitational ripples at the depths into which we peer, these are not so important.
The facts of science are interesting. They also provide us with neat gadgets and amazing ways to kill each other.
Not to be overly negative, yes medical science, public health especially, has done remarkable things to maintain life.
However, philosophy and religion give us reasons to exist. These are not inconsequential musings.

 

[jjsmity]

It is settled science among physicists and cosmologists that the universe originated in an incredibly violent event which is commonly termed the Big Bang. This theory holds that the entire universe originated from a singularity (which is a zero-dimensional object of infinite density).

I am NOT asking for opinions of what CAUSED the Big Bang. I am simply asking if you agree with these scientists, in that the universe came about in this way.

I am NOT seeking discussion about antimatter, or dark matter/energy, or Minkowski space, or any such subject. I am ONLY asking if you agree or disagree with the theory of the Big Bang.

Since we are not here to debate it I wont bring up the many problems, I just want to contest your statement that it is settled science.

“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”
Science 317:1850, 2007

“You have to understand that first there is speculation, then there is wild speculation, and then there is cosmology.” (Martin Harris, Stephen Hawking; genius or pretender? in Focus on Science, Weekend Australian, July 4–5, 1992.)

At the beginning of his book The God Particle, Nobel physicist Leon Ledermann [referring to cosmological speculations like the big bang in science books and articles] writes: “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.”
As quoted in: The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion and the Search for God by Kitty Ferguson, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1995, p. 145 (brackets ours).

“Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.”
Burbidge, G., 1992. Why only one big bang? Scientific American, 266(2):96

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” —Gibbs, W. Wayt, 1995. Profile: George F. R. Ellis; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally. Scientific American 273(4):28, 29.

here is a list of over 500 phd evolutionist cosmologist astronomers and physicists who are leaving the big bang,You could also add the many creation cosmologist astronomers physicist to this list
homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

 

[jjsmity]

origin of galaxies model “badly wrong”
milky way should be surrounded by thousands of tiny satalite galaxies rather than the 25 known only 1% of number predicted also problems with location and motion.
“ Something is badly wrong with our standard big bang origin”
pavel kroupa U of bonn germany
new scientist 203 2722 37- 39 2009

Edinburgh Royal Observatory astronomer Mike Hawkins discovered that the light pulses given off by quasars (strange, high-energy objects in distant space) do not behave according to current astrophysics predictions. Among the explanations? “There’s [the] possibility that . . . the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong,” PhysOrg reports.
April 9, 2010

. “… most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.”
Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol.*295, 25 January 2002, p.*605.

“We don’t understand how a single starforms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.[171]
”

“ Something is badly wrong with our standard big bang origin”
pavel kroupa U of bonn germany
new scientist 203 2722 37- 39 2009

"We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,”
New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186.[172]

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level “
*Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics quoted by Marcus Chown, “Let there be light”,*New Scientist157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998. Cited by Werner Gitt, "What about the big bang?"Creation20(3):42-44, June 1998. Accessed June 1, 2008.

“galaxies are complicated and we don’t really understand how they form. It’s really an embarrassment.”
Thomas, V. and R. Webb. 2011. Slim and beautiful: Galaxies too good to be true. New Scientist. 2816: 32-35.

“Star formation has never been observed.”
Jason Lisle, Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado Director of Research ICR 2012 acts and facts sep 2012

 

[Solus_vistor]

That there exists a vault above us or gravitational ripples at the depths into which we peer, these are not so important.

There were always people who thought that trying to understand the very nature of physical reality - a process often starting with seemingly fruitless speculations - was “not so important”. However, had their views prevailed centuries ago, today we would not be able to do many things, including communicate this way over the internet.

 

[Aloysium]

There were always people who thought that trying to understand the very nature of physical reality - a process often starting with seemingly fruitless speculations - was “not so important”. However, had their views prevailed centuries ago, today we would not be able to do many things, including communicate this way over the internet.

Science offers amazing views of creation.
However, today, it is no longer so much a philosophy of nature as it is an operating manual for matter. This probably reflects the trend in education to produce better cogs for the machine of consumerism.
Overall, I see speculations as being not as important as is necessity, predominantly felt in times of war and deprivation, in fuelling progress.
This is not to discount the work of individuals like Claude Shannon and organizations like Bell Labs, which have deeply influenced the modern world of communication.
Regardless of the gadgets, what is most important is what is in the human heart.
Most of how we view the world today through the lens of science will be radically different a hundred years from now.
The truth remains unchanging.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Since we are not here to debate it I wont bring up the many problems, I just want to contest your statement that it is settled science.
… a bunch of quotes …]

Most of these quotes have nothing to do with the Bang. The Bang was an event. What happened after the Bang is what these guys are talking about. There’s endless speculation about what happened after the Bang, especially in the first umpety umpth of a second after the Bang.

The Bang is where all the matter in the universe came from. We can accept the Bang but disagree about what happened to all that matter afterward.

Only one quote could actually be construed as expressing any sort of doubt about the Bang theory:

Something is badly wrong with our standard big bang origin

I’d like to see this quote in context. I searched for this and could not find it published online. The purported author, Prof Pavel Kroupa, is an astrophysicist specializing in star and galaxy formation. I think he’s unlikely to disbelieve the Bang - he would be completely ostracized from the academic community.

But, even if the good Professor actually doubts the Bang theory, this quote supports my claim that the Bang is settled science. After all, he refers to the Bang as “standard.”

And one (or a few) detractord from a theory does not mean the theory is not settled science. You cannot give me a single quote by any recognized authority that definitively repudiates the Bang or advances any other theory as probable (such as Steady State, which is what everyone believed before the Bang. It said matter is eternal, so no creation was necessary).

 

[DavidFilmer]

Did the Big Bang signal the beginning of creation or just the beginning of the physical universe?

A scientist would say the Bang was the beginning of time, space, and matter. None existed “before” the Bang.

When Satan fell, was it in this time and space?

Angels are spiritual beings and have no dependence on (or interaction with) time and space. We do not know if God created the Angels “before” the Bang, but there is no reason why he could not have done so.

 

[JohnR77]

Since we are not here to debate it I wont bring up the many problems, I just want to contest your statement that it is settled science. …

here is a list of over 500 phd evolutionist cosmologist astronomers and physicists who are leaving the big bang,You could also add the many creation cosmologist astronomers physicist to this list
homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

Your link seems to support steady state model.
**Robert J. Spitzer, S.J. Ph.D **has some really good science debunking that myth.
The universe cannot go back infinitely because all the usable energy would have been used up a long time ago. And in all the years man has been studying and doing science, no one has found a way to create energy from nothing. There is a limited supply.
See

defendingthebride.com/code/sci.html#spitzer

.

 

[jjsmity]

has it been said as dogma by Catholics its ok to believe in the big bang? I know current pope has said it but is it official dogma? what about billions of years, thanks.

 

[porthos11]

Dogma is never stated as, “it’s okay to believe in”. Dogma is always “this must be believed.”

So it’s never dogma when it’s said it’s okay to believe in the Big Bang. It’s perfectly fine to believe in the Big Bang and the Church has never said the Big Bang is heretical.

Furthermore, the Big Bang was first put forth by no less than a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre.

 

[jjsmity]

so it has not stated dogmatically if the big bang is constant with the bible?. Just you can believe it? has that been dogmatically stated.

 

[porthos11]

so it has not stated dogmatically if the big bang is constant with the bible?. Just you can believe it? has that been dogmatically stated.

The Church makes no dogmatic statements concerning matters of science.

We’re free to believe in the Big Bang or not.

 

[jjsmity]

The Church makes no dogmatic statements concerning matters of science.

We’re free to believe in the Big Bang or not.

or creation? just mans spirit? what about noahs flood? what does it say about that if anything.

thanks.

 

[Karen107]

Dogma has to do with beliefs not science. Science has to do with science. If you want to learn about science ask a scientist.

 

[JimG]

The idea behind the big bang theory was first originated by a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. It’s a cosmological theory, not a theory of the history of humanity.

 

[Karen107]

And what I believe is that God started the big bang and made all this possible…