Scholars' Corner--Big Bang

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
If there are any actual research scholars of the Big Bang on this forum, it would be most helpful to explain the Big Bang to those of us who have not had the time, energy, talent or opportunity to do the research.

THANKS!!!

You could establish the format and begin to teach.

THANKS!!!
 
ASimon said:
What is an evolution/atheism thread? I see threads constantly that deal explicitly with these issues, atheism especially. What exactly is an atheism thread that falls under this ban?
Click to expand...
I’m not a moderator so I wouldn’t be qualified to answer that question, although in the linked thread there is some clarification.
 
Cat_Herder said:
I’m not a moderator so I wouldn’t be qualified to answer that question, although in the linked thread there is some clarification.
Click to expand...
I would also point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with either atheism or evolution.
 
ASimon said:
I would also point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with either atheism or evolution.
Click to expand...
When one considers that the man who proposed the Big Bang was a Catholic priest – an astrophysicist – I would say it’s perfectly acceptable on this forum to discuss it.
 
Jim_Baur said:
If there are any actual research scholars of the Big Bang on this forum, it would be most helpful to explain the Big Bang to those of us who have not had the time, energy, talent or opportunity to do the research.

THANKS!!!

You could establish the format and begin to teach.

THANKS!!!
Click to expand...
Lets just for a moment dissect your request: you don’t have “the time” or “the energy” to go wikipedia or www.howstuffworks.com and learn about the big bang theory, so you expect an “actual research scholar” to take a whole lot of his or her time and energy to personally teach you about the Big Bang Theory.

I’m sorry, but the internet just doesn’t work that way. Many, many researchers have already posted about the big bang in easily findable places. If your want personal instruction, you’ll either have to sign up for a class, or higher a private tutor.

You can’t just expect an expert, who studied extensively and took expensive classes to drop every and teach you for free.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Any help?
Click to expand...
I think your asking an awful lot for an “expert” to drop everything and teach you about the big bang. Lots of experts have already published easy-to-find information online, and its really not fair to expect them work as your personal tutor.
 
Jim_Baur said:
If there are any actual research scholars of the Big Bang on this forum, it would be most helpful to explain the Big Bang to those of us who have not had the time, energy, talent or opportunity to do the research.

THANKS!!!

You could establish the format and begin to teach.

THANKS!!!
Click to expand...
The scholars I know who are actually researching Big Bang items (such as nucleosynthesis, quantum field theory, etc), will be spending their spare time doing more research or getting funding. I sincerely doubt that a researching fellow in BBT would spend his time explaining it on the Catholic Answers forums.

If you want to learn about the Big Bang, I would suggest picking out books on the subject from your local library.
 
jdwood983 & runningdude

I want to thank you for your ideas and suggestions.

I am hopeful that an actual scholar in the area of the Big Bang could or might help.

I did believe that it would be rather rare for an actual research scholar in the area of the Big Bang to be on this forum.

The next point is subtle and delicate.

If the individuals have not done the research, then they believe the scientists in that area.

But I am still hopeful an actual individual can say: Yes I have carefully studied the Big Bang.

Aagin, thanks you. This is a sensitive area in many ways.
 
Jim_Baur said:
jBut I am still hopeful an actual individual can say: Yes I have carefully studied the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Jim, the following lecture to generalists by the expert Lawrence Krauss is entertaining and informative. You will need to overlook some of his asides (he and his audience are atheist) and he swears once early on. Also he drifts off into speculation towards the end, which you can safely ignore, it’s just him thinking out loud.

youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
 
In these areas, one of my biggest concerns is that the scientific community is no where in total agreement.

I watched a video by Ben Stein, “Expelled.” In there Stein got Clinton Richard Dawkins to admit that we could have gotten here from aliens making us.

In my judgment, that is all Thomas is really saying in his five proofs, which were reworked form other non-religious people. They were reworked from past scientists.

If one reads them carefully St. Thomas says, there must be one necessary being. We Christians attribute this to our God. Our God has to be that necessary being that caused all of this. We attribute these arguments by scientists of God, and a great deal more after that. I am not sure, but I think we call this a preamble to faith.

Dawkins admitted that is a possibility. He did want to admit it, but he did.
 
I was listening to Dawkins on the radio for a little bit yesterday. I had always imaged him with an American accent previously, an with an American accent, I’d thought he would sound very condescending, but with a British accent, I though he sounded quite charming :p.

Anyways, Dawkin’s modes-operandi is to simply observe the physical world, and draw conclusions solely from these observations. Based on these observations, he doesn’t think their is evidence for a creator. Similarly, while Dawkins might admit that its possible for aliens to have created humanity, he also will not admit there is any evidence that exist for this.

As Christians, our knowledge of God comes from God Himself. Jesus tells us, in Matthew:
NAB, Matthew 16:16-17
Click to expand...
16Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
Click to expand...
  • [16:17] Flesh and blood: a Semitic expression for human beings, especially in their weakness. Has not revealed this…but my heavenly Father: that Peter’s faith is spoken of as coming not through human means but through a revelation from God is similar to Paul’s description of his recognition of who Jesus was; see Gal 1:15–16, “…when he [God]…was pleased to reveal his Son to me….”
Click to expand...
Jesus tells us that “flesh and blood” (physical observations) are not enough to know of God - only through God’s revelation do we know of God.

My basic point for this is that the Big Bang is a physical phenomenon. Through Scripture and revelation, we’ve come to know that God is the creator of all things. If the Big Bang Theory is correct, then it is simply part of God’s creation. While physicists and astronomers may disagree on the details, nothing they propose undermines the truth that of God’s love and creation. God’s love is proven by non-physical sources. 🙂

Now, I can give you some pointers about how individual aspects of the Big Bang might reconcile with Church teaching, but you’ve got to do some leg work and research some background on your own!
 
runningdude

Thanks!

I do not have any concerns or problems with the teachings of the Church.

I love science, math and technology–could not live without it.

Again, thanks!

I would be happy to read any of your ideas and suggestions.

Again, thanks!
 
If one views Expelled, it is a rather interesting conversation between Ben Stein and Dawkins. He, Dawkins, expresses his feelings.

In that documentary Stein acted rather rabbinic, he keeps asking questions. I wish to point this out for fun, it is like St. John’s Gospel, one question after another. At least in the NAB, there are at least 125 questions in 21 chapters of St. John’s Gospel.

Here is another concern, Dawkins limits human reason to math and science. Many scientists will use philosophy to see that there must be a being or beings that designed human beings and the universe. Then they attribute that to their religion or God.

Here is another concern about Big Bang scientists, I do not know, but I think that they are doing science different than experimental science and practical science. The Big Bang research scientists, I think and do not know, do there science a priori.

Again, I do not know, but that is the feeling I get from A Brief History of Time, I have read it at least twice. I get that from reading popular, and not specialized, science.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Here is another concern about Big Bang scientists, I do not know, but I think that they are doing science different than experimental science and practical science. The Big Bang research scientists, I think and do not know, do there science a priori.

Again, I do not know, but that is the feeling I get from A Brief History of Time, I have read it at least twice. I get that from reading popular, and not specialized, science.
Click to expand...
Well, the scientific method is to observe a phenomenon, develop a hypothesis, and look for evidence to support or refute that hypothesis.

When it comes to the Big Bang, astrophysicists observe phenomenon such as the rate that galaxies are expanding. They calculate the direction the galaxies are moving away from each other. Using the speed of light, they determine how far away the galaxies have traveled. Based on this evidence, they’ve found that all observable matter is moving away generally away from a central point, and that it appears to have started moving away from this point 14 billion years ago.

Its a little more complicated than that, but the Big Bang theory is basically built upon these tiny little details all fitting into place. Not all scientists agree on every detail, but that the nature of science - challenging every idea from every angle, so that unsupported theories are disregarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top