Does an athiest using the Big Bang Theory in opposition to the Creation Story lose all credibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FranciscoN2001
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FranciscoN2001

Guest
After all, George Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest formed the Big Bang Theory
 
Last edited:
There are people who come to accept Christianity after they learn all the things that Christians do NOT necessarily believe. Misconceptions are a major obstacle to many.
 
I don’t understand why they would lose credibility?

Some Catholics don’t agree with Creationism. Some do. The same can be said of non-Catholic Christians also.
 
Last edited:
The theory says that in the beginning there was a point of infinite potential in equilibrium. Then a sudden explosion. So what caused the equilibrium to break apart? an external force? a force doesn’t spring out of nowhere. The theory is not fully explainable as a random occurrence.
 
I wouldn’t think he/she would lose credibility unless, after explaining to him/her why the Big Bang Theory is not at odds with creation, he/she persists in the error that the two are incompatible.
 
FranciscoN2001 said:
After all, George Lemaitre, a Catholic Priest formed the Big Bang Theory
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean. In what way does the big-bang conflict with Christian teaching?

I would argue that the atheist in question lacks an understanding for both disciplines. After-all science doesn’t prove that the big-bang was the beginning of physical existence and neither do scientists describe a self-created reality. The Catholic church doesn’t argue as a principle of belief that genesis describes events as they literally took place in physical history. In fact, the Catholic only has the authority to say that God created physical reality. In what way those events actually occurred is a question of interpretation, not revelation.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, if you don’t take ALL scriptures seriously, you are rejecting the LORD. This is why you must understand the context of the Bible and the exact timeframe. Deutoronomy 28:64 is one of the verses that gets taken out of context way too much. My belief is any prophecy that isn’t of Christ is not suitable for this era, because they either have been fulfilled by those before Christ, or by Christ himself
 
Big Bang is all an atheist has left.

They don’t have any other explanation because there is no other alternative than realizing God exists and they most definitely don’t want to do that.
 
SteelArchangel said:
Big Bang is all an atheist has left.

They don’t have any other explanation because there is no other alternative than realizing God exists and they most definitely don’t want to do that.
Click to expand...
Whether or not the Big Bang happened has zero to do with whether or not our universe has a Creator. Proving it wouldn’t disprove a Creator to those who believe and disproving it wouldn’t prove a Creator to those who don’t believe.

“The Big Bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it”, [Pope Francis] stated. Similarly, he argued, “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

Yet despite further murmurings that Pope Francis was beginning (yet another) revolution in Catholic doctrine, it must be pointed out – the Pope’s declaration on either theory has not broken with established Catholic belief in the slightest.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/commen...-professed-the-likelihood-of-human-evolution/

Holy Scriptures do not exclude physical mechanisms by which the Creator created the universe, nor do they impose a human timeline on the Almighty: “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.” 2 Pet 3:8

What is not open to denial by a Catholic is that if the Big Bang happened–and I say “if” in the sense that all human knowledge deduced solely using reason and observation limited after the fact by the passage of time is subject to an “if”–it was an act of God in the literal sense (rather than just the insurance sense, lol).

I really have to wonder how many science-minded people are kept away from the faith because of this widespread piece of misinformation. Misinformation does do that. That is why this piece of misinformation is not innocent, but rather is among the barriers to the faith that we ought to strive to eliminate.
 
Last edited:
That’s what I say but lots of people out there think this type of thing happens by chance.
 
We would likely agree:
  1. That there are scientists of varying faiths who have contributed greatly to our knowledge.
  2. That at least some of those faiths have to be incorrect (although we can’t say for certain which ones).
  3. If you combine 1 and 2 we can say that scientific knowledge can be independent of the discoverer’s faith.
  4. George Lemaitre helped form the Big Bang Theory.
  5. Step 3 shows that we can be convinced of the truth of the Big Bang Theory without being convinced of the truth of George Lemaitre’s Catholicism.
 
Last edited:
Dan_Defender said:
That’s what I say but lots of people out there think this type of thing happens by chance.
Click to expand...
I would say that disillusionment about human nature does more to discourage belief in a benevolent deity than all information and theories combined about nature does.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Step 3 shows that we can be convinced of the truth of the Big Bang Theory without being convinced of the truth of George Lemaitre’s Catholicism.
Click to expand...
This is true. Science tells us nothing about the ultimate nature of reality. If there is a greater ontological context in which physical activity occurs, this is not something that science is aware of. However, the OP points out something that some atheists are commonly guilty of but never apologises for. They often present scientific theories as providing support for metaphysical naturalism. And it is often pointed out that most scientists are atheists as a further defence. Thus when a scientist who is not an atheist is responsible for theories like the big-bang it is not something that goes without a cheer.

That being said, it’s a wonder to me that a theory like the big-bang would be considered as something that supports Atheism. And although i don’t think it’s proof of an absolute beginning of physical existence, it is Christians like William Lane Craig that usually flock to the Big Bang for a defence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top