Peace be unto all.
I am just making this because I have just been curious about it for a while.
Now, Atheists believe that there was a Big Bang, correct?
Now, to me it's very difficult and illogical to believe in the Big Bang....and not believe in Creation.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
Scientists say that matter and energy was CREATED with the big bang. Notice the key word "CREATED"!
Again, all I want is an Atheist's input. How is it possible to believe in Big Bang, and NOT believe in Creation?
Until then, Peace.
We don't know what was there before the big bang, we don't know what caused it.
But that in no way shape or form means that any divine thing made the universe and as I pointed out here if some intelligence created the universe, it is illogical to assume that it would be a god (unless you define a god as a creator of the universe).
The bib bang theory isn't any form of atheist dogma, atheism is nothing more than not believing in any god or gods, it is a scientific theory. Well, I don't think it is Atheist dogma, for I myself believe in the Big Bang, and I am a Muslim. I just find it illogical to believe in the Big Bang, and not believe something that was SPACELESS and TIMELESS that created it.
I understand what Atheism is. It's a weird scientific theory to me though.
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
Well, I don't think it is Atheist dogma, for I myself believe in the Big Bang, and I am a Muslim. I just find it illogical to believe in the Big Bang, and not believe something that was SPACELESS and TIMELESS that created it.
I understand what Atheism is. It's a weird scientific theory to me though. |
dude...I see you will achieve much greatness in this forum.
Neway, you are unsure of yourself.
Wisdom 8: Never ask why you are unsure of others while one is unsure of oneself. You seem to me like you are in a paradox. You question the "illogicalness" of atheism, I inturn, question you personal illogicalness: How do you believe in the Big Bang, and question the illogicalnes of atheism? Could not God or an Atheistic Principle have equal chances of initiating the universe? | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: | Well, I don't think it is Atheist dogma, for I myself believe in the Big Bang, and I am a Muslim. I just find it illogical to believe in the Big Bang, and not believe something that was SPACELESS and TIMELESS that created it.
I understand what Atheism is. It's a weird scientific theory to me though. |
dude...I see you will achieve much greatness in this forum.
Neway, you are unsure of yourself.
Wisdom 8: Never ask why you are unsure of others while one is unsure of oneself. You seem to me like you are in a paradox. You question the "illogicalness" of atheism, I inturn, question you personal illogicalness: How do you believe in the Big Bang, and question the illogicalnes of atheism? Could not God or an Atheistic Principle have equal chances of initiating the universe? |
"Personal illogicalness"? lol....
Because I believe the Big Bang involved some kind of Creation. I find it illogical that an Atheist can believe in the Big Bang, and not believe in it's creation. I have said this.
What is the Atheistic Principle?If you would have asked me yesterday I would have told you. Now I have forgotten. Indi, if you happen to be reading this could you explain it to my friend?
The big bang happens many times forever and ever. It's a ciclical reaction.
Expands, and then it gets contracted to explode again and again.
Never begins and shall never end.
¿why is that our little human minds have to give an ending or begining to everything?
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
Peace be unto all.
I am just making this because I have just been curious about it for a while.
Now, Atheists believe that there was a Big Bang, correct?
Now, to me it's very difficult and illogical to believe in the Big Bang....and not believe in Creation.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
Scientists say that matter and energy was CREATED with the big bang. Notice the key word "CREATED"!
Again, all I want is an Atheist's input. How is it possible to believe in Big Bang, and NOT believe in Creation?
Until then, Peace. |
Before the Big Bang, the Universe was a hot little ball full of energy waiting to burst with the contact of matter and antimatter particles. Before that, we know very little of what happened. The theory is very open, and there could have been a deity that expanded it, but at the same time, what created that deity? You arrive at the same problem as if the universe had nothing to create itself.
I find at least Christian/Jewish/Muslim creationism quite hard to believe because it leaves no margin for any creatures before the latest epoch of the cenozoic era to have actually existed.
Note: I lean more towards science than religion, though my freethought believes in the universe created with both. | polis wrote: |
The big bang happens many times forever and ever. It's a ciclical reaction.
Expands, and then it gets contracted to explode again and again.
Never begins and shall never end.
¿why is that our little human minds have to give an ending or begining to everything? |
Actually the currant observations say that the expansion is accelerating so the universe will expand into oblivion. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| polis wrote: | The big bang happens many times forever and ever. It's a ciclical reaction.
Expands, and then it gets contracted to explode again and again.
Never begins and shall never end.
¿why is that our little human minds have to give an ending or begining to everything? |
Actually the currant observations say that the expansion is accelerating so the universe will expand into oblivion. |
Not enough to convince me. Give us some source.I don't believe that scientists truly believe that nothing at all existed before the big bang, I would think that they might say nothing existed because no one can agree on what exactly existed...obviously we don't have the technology to find that out and as we all know science waits for data and/or proof of something before making a decision. So something existed, let's just say some sort of strange vacuum that we can't understand yet.
I'd like to mention that we also know for a fact there was a big bang of sorts because there is what's called background radiation and using equipment and technology we can check and recheck and determine that yes, indeed there is a background microwave radiation. If you want proof of that just search it in google, it's everywhere. Now if you were to elaborate on that and say that God made this explosion, I wouldn't argue or disclaim anything because I don't think anyone knows exactly why it happened....but it did. You can't honestly believe that a God created the whole universe and then allow one little planet in the middle of nowhere to contain life. That doesn't make much sense to me. So if you believe a God created life elsewhere then you're pretty much saying also that christ is the Zorgnots savior also...or else the Zorgnots are going to hell.
See where I get confused is why so much tacit collusion occurs among the major religions to promote unfounded tidbits of religion like how Christ did this or that, and how people believe it's totally true purely because of pressure from authority figures.
I'm really tired of religion trying to overturn millions upon millions of years of factual data, and what I can't believe is why so many people believe something is true purely by virtue of passage of time. Just because it's thousands of years old, doesn't mean it's 100% right. People were stupid, dumb and highly uneducated from at least a thousand years ago to thousands and thousands of years back.
I will say this though, I don't think science and religion apart can answer the questions that require them to be together. I think it's going to take some faith on the scientists part to believe certain things, and I believe it's going to take some trust on religions part to believe what science has to say. There are undoubtedly things that have no explanation, but you can't just dub anything that can't be explained immediately as a miracle or other such religious event without trying to truly, and I mean truly, explain it scientifically.
I knew a girl once who thought God was unlocking and locking her doors in her car, because it appeared that the locks were not electric and they were doing it by themselves. She actually believed it was some sort of magical deed on God's part....but when I opened up her door and found the electric switching mechanism shorting out due to some moisture that got in there she must have felt really dumb. That's how most religious people I know act, and that's just ridiculous. Come on.
"Not enough to convince me. Give us some source."
Have some faith brother.....:*)
| polis wrote: |
The big bang happens many times forever and ever. It's a ciclical reaction.
Expands, and then it gets contracted to explode again and again.
Never begins and shall never end.
¿why is that our little human minds have to give an ending or begining to everything? |
become a cyborg and find out!
Also...that is probably not true, since the universe is expanding exponentially
{need a name} you are "deist".
cornga56-that is quite funny 
| polis wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | polis wrote: | The big bang happens many times forever and ever. It's a ciclical reaction.
Expands, and then it gets contracted to explode again and again.
Never begins and shall never end.
¿why is that our little human minds have to give an ending or begining to everything? |
Actually the currant observations say that the expansion is accelerating so the universe will expand into oblivion. |
Not enough to convince me. Give us some source. |
Um
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
| Quote: |
| Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,[16] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[17] Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating (see dark energy). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy | The Conspirator wrote: |
| polis wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | polis wrote: | The big bang happens many times forever and ever. It's a ciclical reaction.
Expands, and then it gets contracted to explode again and again.
Never begins and shall never end.
¿why is that our little human minds have to give an ending or begining to everything? |
Actually the currant observations say that the expansion is accelerating so the universe will expand into oblivion. |
Not enough to convince me. Give us some source. |
Um
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
| Quote: | | Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE,[16] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.[17] Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurement of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating (see dark energy). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy |
Nice, thank you.
That's even better, 'cus support what I think.
| Quote: |
On the other hand, dark energy might dissipate with time, or even become attractive. Such uncertainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on itself in a "Big Crunch". Some scenarios, such as the cyclic model suggest this could be the case. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
| Quote: |
This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology. |
What the hell does the big bang have to do with atheism? >_<
An atheist is free to believe in other cosmological models, and a theist is free to believe that their god caused the big bang.
| Indi wrote: |
What the hell does the big bang have to do with atheism? >_<
An atheist is free to believe in other cosmological models, and a theist is free to believe that their god caused the big bang. |
It has much to do with atheism. Many religous people convert to atheism because of the big bang. Also it is a subject of classic religious/atheistic debate for over a century. But you probably already knew that.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the topic. He is a theist that believes in the Bang, and he is in awe of how atheists believe it. (Yes, a year ago I would be in awe of such an ironic topic.) | Indi wrote: |
What the hell does the big bang have to do with atheism? >_<
An atheist is free to believe in other cosmological models, and a theist is free to believe that their god caused the big bang. |
The Big Bang Theory has to do with every single believe on earth, no matter on how many god do you believe in, or even if you believe in any. It's something that has to do with mankind. And YushuaMalik just want to know the atheist point of view. Makes a lot of sense actually. | Indi wrote: |
What the hell does the big bang have to do with atheism? >_<
An atheist is free to believe in other cosmological models, and a theist is free to believe that their god caused the big bang. |
Because a lot of Theists deny the Big Bang happening, while Atheists believe it did. Are there Atheists who don't believe in it? If so, how do they believe the univese was formed.
Last edited by YushuaMalik on Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:01 am; edited 1 time in total | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | What the hell does the big bang have to do with atheism? >_<
An atheist is free to believe in other cosmological models, and a theist is free to believe that their god caused the big bang. |
It has much to do with atheism. Many religous people convert to atheism because of the big bang. Also it is a subject of classic religious/atheistic debate for over a century. But you probably already knew that.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the topic. He is a theist that believes in the Bang, and he is in awe of how atheists believe it. (Yes, a year ago I would be in awe of such an ironic topic.) |
I am not in AWE! I am just confused as to what they believe CREATED it.
I need to read through these other posts some other time. I may be missing something. | {name here} wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: | Peace be unto all.
I am just making this because I have just been curious about it for a while.
Now, Atheists believe that there was a Big Bang, correct?
Now, to me it's very difficult and illogical to believe in the Big Bang....and not believe in Creation.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
Scientists say that matter and energy was CREATED with the big bang. Notice the key word "CREATED"!
Again, all I want is an Atheist's input. How is it possible to believe in Big Bang, and NOT believe in Creation?
Until then, Peace. |
Before the Big Bang, the Universe was a hot little ball full of energy waiting to burst with the contact of matter and antimatter particles. Before that, we know very little of what happened. The theory is very open, and there could have been a deity that expanded it, but at the same time, what created that deity? You arrive at the same problem as if the universe had nothing to create itself.
I find at least Christian/Jewish/Muslim creationism quite hard to believe because it leaves no margin for any creatures before the latest epoch of the cenozoic era to have actually existed.
Note: I lean more towards science than religion, though my freethought believes in the universe created with both. |
The Theistic view is that the deity was always there. Spaceless and timeless.....that is one of the basic definitions for a God.
I don't believe Muslim "Creationism" has that problem. I will look into though, and show it at a later time Insha'Allah.
Tha's interesting. lol | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| If you would have asked me yesterday I would have told you. Now I have forgotten. Indi, if you happen to be reading this could you explain it to my friend? |
No...I kind of want YOU to explain it. | YushuaMalik wrote: |
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | If you would have asked me yesterday I would have told you. Now I have forgotten. Indi, if you happen to be reading this could you explain it to my friend? |
No...I kind of want YOU to explain it. |
im'll have to search through wikepedia again... | YushuaMalik wrote: |
The Theistic view is that the deity was always there. Spaceless and timeless.....that is one of the basic definitions for a God. |
I think it depends on how you define the word "theism", Yushua. There seem to be two main usages:
| Quote: |
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). |
The reason I mention this is because I'm a theist (in the #2 sense) and don't define deity in the way you suggest - as spaceless and timeless. In fact according to Heathen Lore (largely based on the Poetic Edda, a medieval compendium of Norse mythology) our gods were born after a kind of "big bang" event.
Take care,
Eyvind | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | What the hell does the big bang have to do with atheism? >_<
An atheist is free to believe in other cosmological models, and a theist is free to believe that their god caused the big bang. |
It has much to do with atheism. Many religous people convert to atheism because of the big bang. |
Many religious people also convert to atheism because of the atrocities and poor morality in the various scriptures. Are those scriptures under the umbrella of atheism now?
| EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| Also it is a subject of classic religious/atheistic debate for over a century. But you probably already knew that. |
No it is not. It is a subject of scientific/anti-scientific debate. Some religious people want to overrule science for the sake of their own religious insecurities. That has nothing to do with atheism. It is between those religious people and science. And there are many, many theists on the side of science in that particular debate.
If someone came up with a more plausible scientific cosmology than big bang theory tomorrow - say, for example, they find that the steady-state "little bangs" theory is more likely correct - do you really think "atheism" will be shaken at its foundations? Do you think that atheists around the world will suddenly "convert" to some religion? Absurd. -_-
| polis wrote: |
| The Big Bang Theory has to do with every single believe on earth, no matter on how many god do you believe in, or even if you believe in any. It's something that has to do with mankind. And YushuaMalik just want to know the atheist point of view. Makes a lot of sense actually. |
Orly? Oxygen has to do with every single person on Earth, no matter what god or gods they believe in, and even if they believe in none. Would you like the atheist point of view on oxygen?
Protein folding has to do with every single person on Earth, no matter what god or gods they believe in, and even if they believe in none. Would you like the atheist point of view on protein folding?
i could go on, but i think it's clear that none of those things have anything to do with atheism.
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
| Because a lot of Theists deny the Big Bang happening, while Atheists believe it did. Are there Atheists who don't believe in it? If so, how do they believe the univese was formed. |
Of course there are atheists who don't believe in it. -_- There is no atheist dogma or atheist scriptures. The only thing that defines an atheist is that they don't believe that a god or gods exist, nothing more, nothing less. There are dozens of cosmologies that do not include either the big bang or Judaistic creationism, maybe hundreds. There are atheist religions for crying out loud! And they have their own cosmologies and beliefs.
The answer to your question is trivially simplistic. Why do most atheists believe in big bang cosmology? Because that is what is held to be most plausible by current science. End of story, as far as "atheists" are concerned. For any further details, you should be talking to scientists... the ones that define current science.
If you want to find out about the big bang, you shouldn't be talking to atheists, you should be talking to scientists. | YushuaMalik wrote: |
Now, to me it's very difficult and illogical to believe in the Big Bang....and not believe in Creation.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
|
You knw for your thiestic mind also you have to comprehend a time before God created the universe and evrythng in it. I mean there had to be a time when God was idle - i mean before the creation, like some 6000 years ago, eh?
So if you can accept the no space/no time phaenomenon before God's creation spree then you can very well accept the universe getting created in a "big bang".
I'm an athiest, just for the records. | Indi wrote: |
| polis wrote: | | The Big Bang Theory has to do with every single believe on earth, no matter on how many god do you believe in, or even if you believe in any. It's something that has to do with mankind. And YushuaMalik just want to know the atheist point of view. Makes a lot of sense actually. |
Orly? Oxygen has to do with every single person on Earth, no matter what god or gods they believe in, and even if they believe in none. Would you like the atheist point of view on oxygen? |
Sure, why not?. In any case, oxygen doesn't explain the question about origin of universe, a question that has to do with every single believe on Earth, we are not talking about oxygen nor my dog's poo.
| Indi wrote: |
| Protein folding has to do with every single person on Earth, no matter what god or gods they believe in, and even if they believe in none. Would you like the atheist point of view on protein folding? |
About protein folding and MANY other things, I would like to ask many question about it to judes, hinduist, christians, atheist, agnostic, etc.
| Indi wrote: |
i could go on, but i think it's clear that none of those things have anything to do with atheism.
|
LOL, this was the worst argument i've ever read. Hahaha, it's so funny.
You HAVEN'T prove anything budy.
I, as many here, would like to ask a lot of question of everything to theist, atheist and agnostic. And one of the most important questions is their opinion about Big Bang theory. | Indi wrote: |
| The answer to your question is trivially simplistic. Why do most atheists believe in big bang cosmology? Because that is what is held to be most plausible by current science. |
I thank you for your answer.
The problem is that Atheists think that Theists are being illogical for believing in a Spaceless Timeless God. I have the same problem with Atheists beliving in the Big Bang. Not a problem per se, but just a little confusion. | ainieas wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
Now, to me it's very difficult and illogical to believe in the Big Bang....and not believe in Creation.
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
|
You knw for your thiestic mind also you have to comprehend a time before God created the universe and evrythng in it. I mean there had to be a time when God was idle - i mean before the creation, like some 6000 years ago, eh?
So if you can accept the no space/no time phaenomenon before God's creation spree then you can very well accept the universe getting created in a "big bang".
I'm an athiest, just for the records. |
I don't think you understand. I myself believe in the Big Bang. I don't think the world was created 6000 years ago. That is Christian Creationism, not Islamic.
Nice to meet you. | Eyvind wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
The Theistic view is that the deity was always there. Spaceless and timeless.....that is one of the basic definitions for a God. |
I think it depends on how you define the word "theism", Yushua. There seem to be two main usages:
| Quote: | 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). |
The reason I mention this is because I'm a theist (in the #2 sense) and don't define deity in the way you suggest - as spaceless and timeless. In fact according to Heathen Lore (largely based on the Poetic Edda, a medieval compendium of Norse mythology) our gods were born after a kind of "big bang" event.
Take care,
Eyvind |
Huh. That's pretty cool. I didn't know that about "Heathen" lore.
NIce to meet you, Eyvind. | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: | | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: | | If you would have asked me yesterday I would have told you. Now I have forgotten. Indi, if you happen to be reading this could you explain it to my friend? |
No...I kind of want YOU to explain it. |
im'll have to search through wikepedia again... |
For the record.....wikipedia uses poor sources.....if any at all.The thought is that whatever acted as the prime mover does not have to be God. They assert that whatever started the big bang wasn't God, but was just something that started the big bang.
Another thought is that perhaps the universe has always just been, and that there doesn't need to be any deity to start the universe or the process of the big bang. Perhaps that matter is timeless, without that matter being any sort of deity.
Some other people might like to assert that what you've posted about the big bang is actually just a misrepresentation of the big bang, because the scientific theory of the big bang does not actually state that it is the beginning/creation of the universe.
| Talkorigins.com wrote: |
1) What is the Big Bang theory?
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
* The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
* BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
* The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.
Another cosmologist, the German Rudolf Kippenhahn, wrote the following in his book "Kosmologie fuer die Westentasche" ("cosmology for the pocket"): "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)
Finally, the webpage describing the ekpyrotic universe (a model for the early universe involving concepts from string theory) contains a good recounting of the standard misconceptions. Read the first paragraph, "What is the Big Bang model?".
There are a number of reasons that these misconceptions persist in the public mind. First and foremost, the term "Big Bang" was originally coined in 1950 by Sir Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the theory. He was a proponent of the competing "Steady State" model and had a very low opinion of the idea of an expanding universe. Another source of confusion is the oft repeated expression "primeval atom". This was used by Lemaitre (one of the theory's early developers) in 1927 to explain the concept to a lay audience, albeit one that would not be familiar with the idea of nuclear bombs for a few decades to come. With these and other misleading descriptions endlessly propagated by otherwise well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) media figures, it is not surprising that many people have wildly distorted ideas about what BBT says. Likewise, the fact that many in the public think the theory is rather ridiculous is to be expected, given their inaccurate understanding of the theory and the data behind it. |
Source.
(For those who don't know, I'm actually not an atheist, I'm a theist.) | SoundDoctrine wrote: |
Some other people might like to assert that what you've posted about the big bang is actually just a misrepresentation of the big bang, because the scientific theory of the big bang does not actually state that it is the beginning/creation of the universe.
|
Would people asserting that really prove anything? I never limited the Big Bang "Theory" to just the creation of the Universe.
I am aware that the Big Bang Theory deals also with the Expansion of the Universe. It is really interesting to point out also that this is EXACTLY what Allah also claimed in the Quran:
"And the firmament, We constructed with power and skill and verily We are expanding it. (The Noble Quran, 51:47)"
Again, the word "samaa" was used for "firmament". "samaa" as I mentioned above means either "heaven", or "Universe" depending on how it is used. Certainly, the meaning of the word "samaa" in Noble Verse 51:47 is "Universe". | YushuaMalik wrote: |
| SoundDoctrine wrote: | Some other people might like to assert that what you've posted about the big bang is actually just a misrepresentation of the big bang, because the scientific theory of the big bang does not actually state that it is the beginning/creation of the universe.
|
Would people asserting that really prove anything? I never limited the Big Bang "Theory" to just the creation of the Universe.
|
Hm, I suppose they really wouldn't be proving much, now that I think about it, because they'd most likely end up going back to my first point.
I know you didn't limit it to just the creation of the universe, but it seemed like you were stating that the Big Bang Theory is about the origin of the universe.
That response was specifically directed at this part of your post:
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
|
It was only a secondary thing on my mind though; my first two thoughts are the main points I wanted to make. | SoundDoctrine wrote: |
| YushuaMalik wrote: | | SoundDoctrine wrote: | Some other people might like to assert that what you've posted about the big bang is actually just a misrepresentation of the big bang, because the scientific theory of the big bang does not actually state that it is the beginning/creation of the universe.
|
Would people asserting that really prove anything? I never limited the Big Bang "Theory" to just the creation of the Universe.
|
Hm, I suppose they really wouldn't be proving much, now that I think about it, because they'd most likely end up going back to my first point.
I know you didn't limit it to just the creation of the universe, but it seemed like you were stating that the Big Bang Theory is about the origin of the universe.
That response was specifically directed at this part of your post:
| YushuaMalik wrote: |
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. According to science, this universe started 15 billion years ago with a "big bang". Before that, there was no space or time....which is very hard for the human mind to comprehend.
|
It was only a secondary thing on my mind though; my first two thoughts are the main points I wanted to make. |
Ah, okay. Even with that comment, I don't think it was meant to be commented from just that part of what I said. That again, I guess I could've included more in my first post.Part of the reason many choose atheism and science over a dogmatic fundamentalist Christian view is the fact that scientific theories continue to change while Christian philosophy remains stagnant for thousands of years. No one can really prove the Big Bang, especially what happened before the Big Bang and what caused it. Nor can anyone prove the existence of a god. The difference is science strives to disprove theories in order to make way for new ones.
So while scientists do not prove things, they strive to always improve their preexisting theories to always come closer to the truth.
Okay, so there was a big bang. Who's to say that it wasn't God responsible for the Big Bang?
...And God said let there be light. An explosion, perhaps?
| kuyman wrote: |
Part of the reason many choose atheism and science over a dogmatic fundamentalist Christian view is the fact that scientific theories continue to change while Christian philosophy remains stagnant for thousands of years. No one can really prove the Big Bang, especially what happened before the Big Bang and what caused it. Nor can anyone prove the existence of a god. The difference is science strives to disprove theories in order to make way for new ones.
So while scientists do not prove things, they strive to always improve their preexisting theories to always come closer to the truth. |
Scientists prove many things. Rewrite your statement.
