Science Must Acknowledge a Creator to Hold to the Big Bang
We are told, by the definition of The law of conservation of mass/matter, that “matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may change form.” It has been noted that “Matter can become energy, and energy can become matter, but always according to e=m2.” And it is noted that, the “Law of Conservation of Energy states: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
So there is a problem with the Big Bang.
Where did all of the matter/energy originate from, since the Big Bang could neither create nor destroy matter/energy?
Simple answer: A Creator.
Even now, there are those which desire to claim “another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today”. Man can continue to grasp straws from the great unknown, but science returns to their own FACTS that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
It is merely simple to understand where the idea of the Big Bang originated from:
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Throughout His creation, He is said to have spoken things into existence (ex. “God said”).
Just like when God spoke to Moses, concerning the 10 commandments, whereas Moses, the prophet looking unto God for His wisdom, heard His words, the people below, which murmured and disbelieved the very God which had released them from Egypt, only “saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking”, and they only wanted to hear Moses and not the voice of God.
So, as Christians, we hear the Words of God through Scripture as He spoke into existence the matter/energy and all that is, while others only hear the sounds and take what they see as the Big Bang.
Sorry science, (although I completely disagree with your ideas contrary to Scripture concerning the creation of all that is) without a Creator, you have no Big Bang.
So there is a problem with the Big Bang.
Where did all of the matter/energy originate from, since the Big Bang could neither create nor destroy matter/energy?
Simple answer: A Creator.
Even now, there are those which desire to claim “another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today”. Man can continue to grasp straws from the great unknown, but science returns to their own FACTS that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
It is merely simple to understand where the idea of the Big Bang originated from:
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Throughout His creation, He is said to have spoken things into existence (ex. “God said”).
Just like when God spoke to Moses, concerning the 10 commandments, whereas Moses, the prophet looking unto God for His wisdom, heard His words, the people below, which murmured and disbelieved the very God which had released them from Egypt, only “saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking”, and they only wanted to hear Moses and not the voice of God.
So, as Christians, we hear the Words of God through Scripture as He spoke into existence the matter/energy and all that is, while others only hear the sounds and take what they see as the Big Bang.
Sorry science, (although I completely disagree with your ideas contrary to Scripture concerning the creation of all that is) without a Creator, you have no Big Bang.
26 comments:
What a stupid presumption.
Just because we do not have a full understanding of the big bang, does it necessarily mean that we presume a Creator must exist?
If this is the way science works, we'd all be struck by lightning. No lightning rods will be built, cos its all god's will and wrath.
Again, Tim, your posts with regards to Science borders of ridicule and total ignorance.
The problem with inserting a "Creator" for creating a universe is that, it is more improbable for the universe to exist by itself than for God to exist by itself, since God would have to be far more complex to create a universe.
Such an argument does not hold, Tim. And please don't tell me the big bang isn't "observable": The continued expansion of the universe means that at some point, the universe will explode.
And there is an ongoing project too in Switzerland, whereby they are going to simulate the beginnings of the universe by building this huge particle collider. This will unravel more mysteries of the universe, and in time quash the "God" theory of religions.
I would say no more ignorant than you admit science is concerning their own Big Bang idea - or - as concerning how science can defy itself that through the Big Bang, although matter/engergy cannot be created or destroyed was able to be created from nothing.
At this point, Science does not assume to have all the answers. That is why people do research, and they are spending billions of dollars to look into the origins of our universe.
Science is an ongoing process, Tim. Scientists don't make shit up like Christians do.
It is blatantly ignorant to say that God must be involved in a phenomenon we have not yet understood.
People in the past thought that the plague was the result of God's wrath, but science has proven otherwise.
Using God is a poor excuse to explain things we do not know, and history is replete with such examples.
I fail to follow your reasoning of "The problem with inserting a "Creator" for creating a universe is that, it is more improbable for the universe to exist by itself than for God to exist by itself, since God would have to be far more complex to create a universe."
You admit you nor science "have a full understanding of the big bang", so regardless of how complex God is or whether we have a full understanding of Him means nothing. We have that which needs to be known of Him in the Scriptures.
The creation by God's Intelligent Design is oberservable, everywhere we look, including in the mirror.
Remember science cannot prove whether or not "the plague was the result of God's wrath", because it has no means as to understand the supernatural realm. It can merely only observe the physical, natural points and see what may have naturally occurred.
As for "Scientists don't make s--t up". lol That is why scientists find fraud scientists...?
It is also "blatantly ignorant" to say God does not exist simply because you have not physically seen Him and/or your precious natural science is unable to prove the supernatural by their natural eyes.
Again, you have just highlighted the fundamental difference between Science and Religion.
You assume that the tree that grows in the park is evidence of your God. I could go further and say that is the evidence I need for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So what? Does the tree prove you or I right?
My reasoning is simple. If Christians say that the universe has to be created by a creator, then it cannot happen by itself.
Using this logic, for a Creator to exist by itself will require higher odds than a Universe that exists all by itself.
Tim, for your sake, kindly refrain from writing about Science. It really makes you look really stupid. I am not trying to mock you. Just telling you the plain old truth.
There are far more fraudulent pastors than scientists. In fact, almost all the evangelical pastors I have seen are frauds. The baptist ones are no better. Are you going to abandon your religion too???
And stop using the computer. That is a work of science, which you deem a fraud.
Go back to your cave where you belong.
"for a Creator to exist by itself will require higher odds than a Universe that exists all by itself."
With God being the Creator, meaning outside of creation (for He has always been and will always be), He is not held by the laws which He created to govern His creation (i.e. all that is). The quick difference: God has no beginning or ending, but has created a beginning to this world and shall bring it to an end.
Again, the existence of such a Creator is statistically more improbable than a self sustaining universe existing by itself.
wow , the god of the gaps again ...
Now that god has been kicked out of biology creationists look at new places to spread fear and ignorance
.the god before the big bang argument is lame and no theoretical physicist will give any value to it.
It is just an argument based on peoples argument of the way science and cosmology works.
Even if there is a god who was able to create everything or tune the laws of the universe, it would be a complex god even more complex than the universe.
But this god holds no resemblence to the monstrous childish creation depicted in the bible and other myths.
"it would be a complex god even more complex than the universe."
Finally someone is catching on.
What about science of the gaps or Big Bang of the gaps? Is doesn't keep anyone from beliving in those. And there appears to be just as much ignorance surrounding them.
Science of the gaps? Never heard of it.
The only ignorance comes from christians like you, Tim. People who love to convolute truth into your distorted, religious worldview.
Like I said, The Big Bang theory wasn't a theory just pulled out of the magician's hat. I suggest you read about it before you even utter your nonsense.
An argument from the first law of thermodynamics assumes that the Big Bang operated under a system that included the laws of thermodynamics. It is currently unknown what type of system the Big Bang may have operated under. We can’t simply apply the laws that exist within the current state of the universe to a state when the universe as we know it didn’t exist. It’s possible that the laws of thermodynamics came into existence with everything else, after the Big Bang. We don’t know what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang so how do you know that the laws of thermodynamics actually existed before the Big Bang?
The article I posted claims, “another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today”. Guess we will see what they claim.
But doesn't science use all of the laws of the universe to establish the basis for the Big Bang?
I appreciate your comments alpha (even when I disagree), unlike most of the regular non-conversational type I receive here.
I point that science "doesn't know" leaves wide open that in fact there is an equal possiblity that indeed God does exist "before" the Big Bang.
I understand people will hurry to say, "well I can believe this and that", but the fact remains God supercedes anything else man's imagination can bring to mind.
The fact remains that neither science nor atheists can say, "God does not exist", but can merely conclude, "I believe God does not exist" or "Science has not proven God exist". No absolute.
What Science does not know, you want to substitute with God.
That is a prudish and outlandish idea. If I didn't know how exactly the tides rise and ebb, am I supposed to use God to substitute the effects of the moon's gravity on the tides???
Let us not be hasty into making such ridiculous claims. After all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not far from Tim's trinitarian God, along with Zeus and all the rest of the deities on the "possibility" list.
The fact remains that neither science nor atheists can say, "God does not exist", but can merely conclude, "I believe God does not exist" or "Science has not proven God exist". No absolute.
You know, Tim, that your post was about science, but when people use logic and reason to show you that your understanding of science is minimal at best, you fall back on the age old argument above. Why not simply admit ignorance, and be done with it? Why maintain a blog that tries to argue against science to prop up your religious beliefs? Just say what you believe, and leave it at that. Don't try to use science to justify your religious beliefs, because science will never do that. Science is about evidence, and facts, not about beliefs and faith, which by definition assumes a lack of evidence and facts.
As for the Big Bang theory, Talk Origins is your friend. I wouldn't leave home without it if I were you, and I was going to post about science.
Read up on the Big Bang Theory, and tell me where it claims that matter is either created or destroyed. As usual, you creationist sorts create straw man assertions, and then knock them down. That's really easy to do. Let me show you.
Tim, over at Splinters of Silver asserts that heaven is made of cheese, of the Swiss variety, and those who fall through the holes in the cheese, end up in Hell. We all know that it's impossible to find enough milk from enough cows to make that much swiss cheeese to create heaven, so this can not be the case. Tim must be making it up.
Of course, the initial assertion is totally fabricated, so the conclusion is easy to reach. Same with your initial assertion. You assume a "creation" of matter in the BBT, and that is not a valid assumption.
Do your homework before you make assertions like you do.
John P,
Do you actually read my blogs? I do not “use science to justify your religious beliefs”. I merely point out the science believed (or taught) to assume there is no God is not worthy of the credit in which it is given, for science is unable to establish the absolute, “there is no God”.
One can believe in the Big Bang (which they use today’s laws to establish happened) then say “we don’t know” to what caused or took place before hand, yet say with so called personal or scientific authority, “we know God didn’t do it, because God doesn’t exist”.
Simply admit that God may in fact exist, but science has not proven it for you as of yet. Simply admit that science has no clue as to how the Big Bang occurred and therefore their theory may be incorrect and God may very well exist.
“Read up on the Big Bang Theory, and tell me where it claims that matter is either created or destroyed.” Simply if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then something was created, if there was something before the Big Bang (which this article seems to believe) it could change the entire theory of the Big Bang or shatter it totally, but still leaves the beginning of that previous state. Simply say, “I don’t know, it is possible that God may exist.”
Beast,
We both know that your precious “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is only a make believe idol in the face of the Holy One True God which you will one day face. God (even if you wish to argue the point of God or Allah) has clearly been in the mindset of man from the beginning, with the corrupt nature causing man to fall into the worship of idols over the One True God.
Again, science does not know there is no God, it simple believes it cannot prove God. So please do not use science as a tool to say “there is no God”.
Wow, what an interesting discussion. I'd just like to say that I've been sort of lurking around here for a while, reading different posts and comments and things, and I felt compelled to add in my two cents. You say that God is "outside of creation (for He has always been and will always be), He is not held by the laws which He created...". I assume by this you mean that God wasn't created, and that he's kind of just been around forever. I'd like to suggest that maybe energy is like that. That, because it can't be created or destroyed, it's just been around forever, and it led to the Big Bang. If Christians can assert that something is infinitely old, so can science. The thing is, science has tested energy and experiemented with engergy and can state with 100% certainty that energy can't be created or destroyed. So maybe it's not a case of something having to be created, maybe it's just a matter of which infinate substance/Person is the real universe-starter. Oh, and just in case you ask "Well if energy has been around forever, why has it only created one planet with life/why didn't it create the Earth sooner/etc", I would simply ask you the same things about God. I'm no scientist, but it's just something to think about perhaps.
Do you actually read my blogs?
Yes.
I do not “use science to justify your religious beliefs”.
The question is, do YOU read your blog? The title of this post is "Science Must Acknowledge a Creator to Hold to the Big Bang". You are arguing a scientific proposition to convince us that there is a god who created the universe. Do I need to say any more?
I merely point out the science believed (or taught) to assume there is no God is not worthy of the credit in which it is given, for science is unable to establish the absolute, “there is no God”.
Science is not in the business of establishing there is no god. Science never teaches that there is no god. That is a conclusion reached by those who DO believe there IS a god, because they interpret scientific findings as casting doubt on their beliefs. Thus threatened, they attack, and the attacks usually are based on pure nonsense, like your original post.
One can believe in the Big Bang (which they use today’s laws to establish happened) then say “we don’t know” to what caused or took place before hand, yet say with so called personal or scientific authority, “we know God didn’t do it, because God doesn’t exist”.
See above. You're really out on a limb here, Tim, without a safety net. One doesn't "believe" in the Big Bang. It's not a religion, despite your belief to the contrary. One merely decides whether there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of the Big Bang. Right now, the consensus is that it is the best theory to encompass all known facts, but it is far from established. There is no better theory. The idea of a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) is not even considered, because science cannot test or falsify supernatural explanations. They are outside the bounds of science.
Simply admit that God may in fact exist,
OK. God may in fact exist.
but science has not proven it for you as of yet.
True. Probably never will given the infinitesimal probability of god.
Simply admit that science has no clue as to how the Big Bang occurred and therefore their theory may be incorrect and God may very well exist.
That I can't do. Science does in fact have a clue. In fact, a multitude of clues. Far more clues than point to your favorite hypothesis, of which there are none. Zero. Zip. Nada.
“Read up on the Big Bang Theory, and tell me where it claims that matter is either created or destroyed.” Simply if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then something was created,
OK. So you didn't read the article. I'm sure you're a busy man. I'll tell you what it didn't say.It didn't say there was nothing before the Big Bang.
if there was something before the Big Bang (which this article seems to believe) it could change the entire theory of the Big Bang or shatter it totally, but still leaves the beginning of that previous state.
No, it doesn't shatter the theory, it IS the theory.
Simply say, “I don’t know, it is possible that God may exist.”
And when it's proven, I'll get down on my knees and worship him. Until then...
Tim, your straw man arguments are hardly convincing at all.
"Simply admit that God may in fact exist, but science has not proven it for you as of yet. Simply admit that science has no clue as to how the Big Bang occurred and therefore their theory may be incorrect and God may very well exist."
Just because no one can prove a negative, do we have to assume that this mysterious father figure exists?
Science cannot prove the existence of fairies, invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters. Are you saying that there is a good chance that they may exist?
You only wish it to be true what you believe is true. That is not truth. That is your own version of truth.
I don't think anyone in the scientific community will assert that "science proofs there is no God". In fact, Science says there is no proof for gods, just like all the rest of the deities. That is why most scientists do not believe in such nonsense.In fact, the burden of proof lies on Christians who claim that god exists.
"We both know that your precious “Flying Spaghetti Monster” is only a make believe idol in the face of the Holy One True God which you will one day face. God (even if you wish to argue the point of God or Allah) has clearly been in the mindset of man from the beginning, with the corrupt nature causing man to fall into the worship of idols over the One True God."
Funny you will say that, because again, at the end of the day, you cannot even present your evidence with regards to this "extraordinary" event.
Anonymous,
I can’t help but laugh at your comment. Not really of the comment, but I did reason this point to be a defense before writing my post, its just funny that the major commenter to my blog didn’t think of it first.
So, simply what you are saying is either one has faith in God or faith in energy when it comes to a Creator, right? Sorry, I know some do not like the word faith, so I will reword: Some hold to God and others to energy as the Creator.
But then we have, “What caused the Big Bang”? God or energy? If energy, what source (inward or outward) caused the Bang? Simply science doesn’t know.
John P,
Why do atheists always want to argue words like faith, believe, etc.?
Honestly, you write, “One doesn’t “believe” in the Big Bang. It’s not a religion, despite your belief to the contrary. One merely decides whether there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of the Big Bang.”
What word would you use then? If you believe (to suppose or assume) that “there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of the Big Bang”, then by that fact, you believe in the Big Bang.
Why are some so scared of religion that they are even afraid to associate themselves with simple words? The word “believe” holds more meaning that only religious meaning. You simply trust science’s theory of the Big Bang. You believe it.
Tim:
I think what John is saying is that the Big Bang theory is more than just mere belief or faith. It is supported by evidence, and hence is well validated. In that science, factual is more appropriate.
The Large Hadron Collider should provide some answers to the Big Bang Question.
Beast
Post a Comment