Big bang question

I am trying to put together an apologetics type website. I want to provide scientific evidence that supports the Bible. This forum will be a great resource. Recently I have been reading the book “I do not have enough faith to be an atheist” by Turek and Geisler. There is a chapter using the big bank theory as very strong evidence that an intelligent being created something out of nothing.

I am not going to go into much detail about what the book states, I mainly want to know if this is still solid evidence or has the general scientific community disproven the big bang theory. The reason I am asking is on various news feeds I am constantly seeing articles supporting the theory there always was a universe. I do understand that many scientist will never accept any thought there could be a God, I mainly want to know is the supposed evidence refuting the big bank really strong evidence or simply more attempts to explain away a possibility they could never accept.

2 Likes

Hi, Gary. If you’ve lurked here much, you will probably guess this venue will be a bitter-sweet source for you - in that many of us Christian regulars who frequent the forum can inform you of reasons why this is probably not a successful approach to apologetics rather than otherwise.

But for what it’s worth - the Big Bang Theory hasn’t gone away. People can dicker about what came “before” or what happened in the singularity that it was - but just like evolutionary biology, the big bang theory shows no signs of going anywhere; it’s just being tweaked in the details and possible mechanisms in play in the earlier, and earlier moments of time approaching that singularity.

All that said, this is an ideal place for you to test your ambitions against a lot of astute minds who will be happy to fill you in about any shortcomings.

…That was a wonderfully delicious typo (I presume!?) No doubt there are prosperity believers who very much believe in God via the “big bank theory”! :sweat_smile:

7 Likes

I think that’s the wrong approach and will be doomed to failure. The Bible reflects an ancient understanding of the natural world; but our current understanding of the natural world is much different. And you know what? It makes no difference, because the Bible isn’t a science book.

No. not going to get anywhere with that one.

But…

  1. Theists believed the world had a beginning, and for a while scientists assumed the universe always existed. You can say the theists were right about that one.
  2. Theists believed that the natural laws governing the world was not a closed system (because they thought there were things outside of natural law interacting with the world). And for a while scientists assumed the laws of nature were a causally closed system. You can say the theists were right about that one.
3 Likes

Hi Gary,

While your aims are well intentioned, the main pitfall you need to watch out for here is the risk of making claims that are factually incorrect or misleading. It’s a common mistake for apologists to approach science as if they were on some sort of “ammunition gathering exercise,” and in the process to latch onto something or other and end up misunderstanding it completely. You’ve probably heard of “quote mining” – latching onto something that a scientist has said and presenting it out of context in ways that don’t accurately reflect the point that he or she was actually making – that is an example of the way things can go wrong if you take this approach.

The thing about science is that it demands a very strict, rigorous, disciplined and systematic approach to the evidence that we see in the world around us. This means that you have to meet some pretty stringent standards before you can make any claims about what it does or doesn’t support. This is where Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory, for example – it’s not that there isn’t any evidence of design in nature, but that evidence of design in nature is very hard if not impossible to demonstrate rigorously and systematically.

The Bible, by contrast, is concerned much more with the vagaries of humans and other living beings. It’s all about our relationships with God and with each other. These work on a much more fuzzy level that leaves a lot more open to interpretation than mathematics and logic. It’s basically like this:

image

5 Likes

There is no current theory that there always was a universe. Not since Fred Hoyle’s Steady State theory was finally overturned in 1964.

Can you link to a search page of articles supporting such? By disinterested cosmogonists? There will always be one trying to make a name for themselves.

Philosophically speaking Sir Fred was on the same right track as Siger of Brabant in 1277 of course. The BB is a certainty and so is its corollary. It is one of infinite from eternity. None of which necessitates meaning.

1 Like

image

1 Like

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.”–Galileo Galilei

The Big Bang theory (BBT) only covers the era of time since the initial expansion of the universe. Within BBT there has always been stuff. The evidence for our universe expanding from a small, dense, and highly energetic singularity 13.8 billion years ago is pretty good, so I don’t think you will make any headway trying to disprove the theory.

As to where that singularity came from, there is really no evidence one way or another.

4 Likes

I really appreciate the responses. I know I will not be able to prove anything by using science. The argument I want to try to make is just as evidence is used to convict or acquit someone in a court of law, there is enough evidence to give reasonable, highly intelligent people a strong basis to follow God of the Bible. I would venture most of us do not believe just because someone told us to. I think most of us used reason to believe what we believe.

Just as in a court of law arguments can be made supporting or refuting evidence presented. Rarely is a decision made from just one piece of evidence. My approach will be to present various types of evidence such as changed lives, Christianity’s impact on the world, human nature, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence, science, the Bible, the resurrection, and more.

I want to try and present evidence that is not easily refuted, even though I know any evidence will have its share of skeptics. I would love to put a link up for the pages I am working on but I am not sure if I am allowed to do this.

I am not very good at approaching people and asking them if they know Jesus. I feel very strongly our purpose in life should be to make a positive impact on this world and there is no better way to make this world better then by pointing people to the source of all truth. I am an old fart with many weaknesses but a major goal of mine is to know I can make a positive difference in at least one persons life by pointed them to God. Even though I am not an outgoing person I like meeting new people. I try to travel a lot and that is when I seem to meet many new friends. My website focuses on travel and photography, but the name of my website creates an opportunity to defend my faith. What I want to do is hand out cards for my travel and photography site hoping some get curious enough to check out the apologetic pages.

Gary

1 Like

Perhaps… But you are not going to get to an agreement with Christianity and the Bible from objective observation alone. Subjective experience, and choices of participation are required, where what you want matters. But many things in life are like that.

I understand I never will be able to convert someone by just using good reason. It is a matter of the heart, after all scripture states there will be a time when God will make himself known and people will still reject Him. I was told a good question to ask if a conversation starts leading to a conversation about God is this - Please be honest and let me know that even if you discovred everything about the Bible is true, would you still be a Christian?

All I want to do is try and remove roadblocks and give people that are sincerely wanting to know truth some points to ponder. Basically I would be happy if I could just plant some seeds.

That question first occurred to me very recently and I wondered: although, according to Erik Curiel, author of “The Many Definitions of a Black Hole” [published in Nature Astronomy | VOL 3 | JANUARY 2019 | 27–34 | www.nature.com/natureastronomy]:

  • “…black holes are objects of central importance across many fields of physics, there is no agreed upon definition for them, a fact that does not seem to be widely recognized”

it seems, IMO, “mainstream science consensus” is that all black holes are, or are a subset of “event horizons”. Because I have yet to find any suggestion that an event horizon can exist without a singularity within it–if true [and I don’t know whether it is or not–I would think it reasonable to claim or suggest that any singularity originates (i.e. “comes”) from an event horizon, in which case–I would think–collapsing objects “breed” singularities. Just my personal conjecture … which raises the conceivable possibility/probability of an infinite process in which singularities produce things that eventually collapse and become event horizons, each of which contains a singularity, and so on.

1 Like

For me, the main lesson is that we know so little, and there are so many possibilities. This is where arguments based on ignorance or probabilities really fall flat. How can we calculate the probability of a universe like ours if we know so little?

Like the infinity of others from eternity, if null then !null. Absolutely nothing at all is noisy.

Just like an infinite regress of cats. Right, @heymike3?

1 Like

I wanted to respond to this comment, but Klax is not replying to me.

In his clever use of language, when he said I won, I’m thinking he meant I was going to be snoozed.

Since I was not raised Christian, I have some access to how I might have answered such a question when I was not a Christian. My answer might have been as follows…

It is a matter of evidentiary standards/criterion. Make these too high and much of the conclusions of science are excluded. Make them too low and you get leprechauns and patent medicines made with radium. Very little in the Bible is going to be supported by evidence satisfying anything near the standards of evidence demanded by science for its conclusions. The most you can say is that you wont find evidence against the Bible satisfying a better standard of evidence.

For this reason accepting that something is true isn’t quite so black and white. And the question becomes more about what reasons we can find to accept a lower standard of evidence for some things. Are there compelling reasons to take any of the things of religion seriously and what reasons are there for choosing this particular religion over others.

From my years in the church and in my conversations with Christians, I have often heard that a belief in God is due to personal experience and faith. People say that they feel God’s presence, that they have a personal relationship with God, and that they believe through faith. I don’t know if I have ever met a believer who believes in God solely because of what they consider to be objective evidence.

2 Likes

Keep in mind most of my conversations will probably not be with scientists :grin: ! My understanding is much of science, or maybe just some of science, still relies on assumptions, which are not facts.

Even though proof is evidence, evidence does not have to be proof. Again, i will use the court of law example, a verdict can be made with absolutely no proof. If enough evidence is presented a reasonable person can come to a reasonable conclusion. And of course many will disregard evidence, no matter how convincing, due to personal biases.

Bottom line is i now feel comfortable I can use the Big Bang theory as a piece of evidence.

A warning, I think I am going to be using this forum a lot. I will use this as a resource on my website. To me new earth, old earth, evolution or no evolution, it does not matter. I just think there is much we do not know. I feel the Bible tells us what we need to know, how God uses scripture does not matter.

As I said in a previous post, I just want to remove stumbling blocks and give people searching for truth points to ponder. I find this forum and website fascinating because I am open to ideas such as a day could have meant an era and God could have used evolution for his creation. I think a lot of the information provided by BioLogos can help skeptics that think there could be something to the Bible but have a lot of issues with traditional interpretations. Correct me if I am wrong.

i th

That is certainly one of the reasons I want to point out on my website. For me witnessing how God totally changed my life and the lives of others is what strengthened my faith. My interest in apologetics has contributed to making my faith stronger and for me gives me a little more confidence when trying to share my faith.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.