gnostic
The Lost One
PennyKay said:Simple question:
What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?
There was a very, very, very big firecracker?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
PennyKay said:Simple question:
What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?
What is the sound of one hand clapping? What is the color of a bald man's hair?Simple question:
What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?
Simple question:
What is a creationists understanding of the big bang theory?
I could ask a creationist what was listening to God when he gave the command, "let there be light..." or "let there be a big bang..." and it obeyed his command and magically did something.
Having the "Big-Bang" as God's creation day does not mean any other aspect or attribute needs to be dropped or changed.Then you must drop other Godly attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, wisdom, love, writer of the Bible (or whatever other text), consciousness, etc. in order to make it identical to the Big Bang event. Like I said, doing so strips "God" of most of the things that meaningfully would give it the property of being God.
Again, might as well call a pair of socks "God." You've reduced God to the god of Einstein and Spinoza, i.e. the non-conscious universe. Why not just call it "the universe?"
the big bang was an incredible surge of light in the form of electromagnetic radiation. From the light beams of the big bang came protons and neutrons and electrons etc, these produced helium and hydrogen and so forth... all the elements came together to form matter and voila, the rest is history.
and just as the writer of genesis so eloquently put it, 'God said let there be light, and there was light'
the big bang was an incredible surge of light in the form of electromagnetic radiation. From the light beams of the big bang came protons and neutrons and electrons etc, these produced helium and hydrogen and so forth... all the elements came together to form matter and voila, the rest is history.
and just as the writer of genesis so eloquently put it, 'God said let there be light, and there was light'
Evidently god speaks volumes.
Having the "Big-Bang" as God's creation day does not mean any other aspect or attribute needs to be dropped or changed.
An identical event does not have to include an identical cause or purpose or whatever.
You repeat about calling a pair of socks as God but that is your own degradation and no realistic logic would give such a comparison.
And calling God as the Universe is equivalent to God as "nature" or "mother-earth" which are long standing doctrines, Link 1 and Link 2.
Einstein was correct in saying: "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind".
:clap
Justice and justification are long-long-time lost endeavors for people as it has been for humanity and science will never solve that dilemma.Okay, but then you're saying that God wasn't equivalent to the Big Bang event but was rather simply present or caused it -- such as, perhaps, saying that the BBE is how God created. If so then I misinterpreted you, but this position is no less troublesome because it lacks justification.
because Einstein took some of his ideas out of the Bible
\but to a truth seeker
He probably didn't, sorry. Special Relativity falls fairly "simply" (this is theoretical cosmology we're talking about) out of the available facts, notably that the speed of light is constant in all directions.I find that Einstein had an edge over other scientist because Einstein took some of his ideas out of the Bible...
He probably didn't, sorry. Special Relativity falls fairly "simply" (this is theoretical cosmology we're talking about) out of the available facts, notably that the speed of light is constant in all directions.
Justice and justification are long-long-time lost endeavors for people as it has been for humanity and science will never solve that dilemma.
What I said and say is that the "Big-Bang" is a scientific proof of a "creation day" and that creation day is a type of proof for a Creator whether we call that Creator as "God" or "the Universe" or "nature" or whatever it might be called.
Science gives us evidence more than proofs as like we can not see gravity but we see the effects and then give that the name as "gravity" for the invisible force. And as is told "Newton and Einstein" gave greatly different understandings as to what was the "gravity" and now we have the concepts of "Dark matter and dark energy" which are redefining the invisible force called gravity.
I find that Einstein had an edge over other scientist because Einstein took some of his ideas out of the Bible, as like in several text of the Bible it speaks of God changing time and of God having different measures of time. One example here Psalms 90:4, and another one here Genesis 6:3, and such text might mean little to most people but to a truth seeker then there are many such passages that give huge insight into the condition of man and to the universe and to "time" which Einstein capitalized on - and rightly so.
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind".
:drool:
Although Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal God his discoveries induced a reverential attitude in him. He admitted: "You will hardly find one among the profunder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. Religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of the law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beeings is an utterly insignificant reflection".
In other words this unverse is too wonderfully made to be the outcome of a random explosion !!!
Have a nice day.
what good reason do we have to believe that God was not necessary at the point of creation whenever it occurred? Was Hawking there at that time?Interesting, except the "point before the Big Bang" is not the singularity, the singularity is our Universe, continually expanding from that original point.
And, as Hawking further states in The Grand Design, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
He is not saying there is no God, he is saying the necessity of God can not be shown.
Actually this argument is too presumptive and untenable. You equate "God" with "universe" in the early Big Bang epoch, but in doing so you strip the word "God" of its meaning.
Gods, as they're normally conceived, are not required. If you call the early BB epoch "God" then you might as well call a pair of socks "God."