Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Did God use the Big Bang to create the Universe?

  1. #1
    Hubble's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    93
    Userbars
    1
    Thanks
    76
    Thanked
    41/22
    DL/UL
    28/0
    Mentioned
    9 times
    Time Online
    7d 19h 8m
    Avg. Time Online
    4m

    Did God use the Big Bang to create the Universe?

    Let's start with a little backstory/setting about myself and my beliefs and how they tie in with this thread. I was raised as a (you need an account to see links), and up until I'd say a couple years ago, my beliefs were that the Christian God created everything in existence. I was born into a Christian school, the only thing I was taught was Christian religion, so of-course that's what I was going to believe. Then, I started looking stuff up online about different theories and beliefs of how the Universe came about, or how it was created, such as (you need an account to see links), and later on (you need an account to see links), and many others - needless to say, I lost my faith in (any) God, let alone the Christian God.

    To kick start this thread and point it in the direction I intend, let's start to discuss two things;

    (you need an account to see links)

    (you need an account to see links)

    Both of these are factual, evidence based, and are proven to be true through repeated experiments, repeated results of said experiments, as-well as mathematics. These are not based on a 'belief' or on 'faith'. They are things you can essentially, for lack of a better explanation, see with your own two eyes. Again, they are not based on 'faith' or a 'belief' that has not been proven. A (poor) example I constructed is, I can believe one of two things;

    A) A car is not barreling towards me about to kill me, or,

    A car is barreling towards me about to kill me.

    You can choose to believe the evidence and proof that the car is barreling towards you, because you can see it with your own two eyes, or, you can have 'faith' (not based on evidence or proof) that the car is not barreling towards you. Which seems more logical, and real? Obviously that the car is, in-fact, barreling towards you.

    So with that out of the way we an move on to what these two previously mentioned concepts/theories are.

    First, Hubble's Constant, is the observation that everything in the Universe is moving away from itself - stars, planets, etc. it's all moving away from itself - Edwin Hubble discovered this and saw this with his own two eyes (again, proof, not faith or a belief) when he was looking through a telescope one night in 1929. This constant has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and there is no argument, that merits any amount of weight, against the expansion of the Universe. We can observe stars moving away from each other with our own eyes through the use of telescopes, and through the use and combination of special telescopes and computers we can see the wavelengths, and frequency of the wavelengths of celestial bodies changing over time, because again, they are moving away from each other (they are moving away from the apparent observer) this is something called (you need an account to see links). When an object moves away from an apparent observer, it moves more towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum - when an object moves closer to an apparent observer, it moves more towards the blue end of (you need an account to see links). Redshift has been measured in celestial bodies, therefore once again, proving that the Universe is expanding and everything is moving away from itself.

    But we have to remember that in order for this to be true, everything in the Universe would have to have an origin - a common point at which it all began, both physically and chronologically. If it were not expanding and moving away from a common point, it could be considered to be infinite, but is there such thing as 'infinite'? No. At least, not in terms of the Universe and its origin. If the Universe, both physically and chronologically was infinite, I.E it extended forever in the past and future, there would be no present. Think about it, if something extended forever backwards, it could not have a present in time nor space, because it would always be extending backwards, and the same goes for the opposite, extending forward. So we can safely rule out the Universe being infinite, chronologically and physically.

    So we know that the Universe had a common origin, a beginning. But this is where the second idea/matter I mentioned earlier comes into play, the Law of Conservation of Energy. Basically the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only transformed from one form to another. Now let's take into consideration that everything in the Universe is energy - you, me, the Earth, the Moon, even the 'empty' vacuum of space is made of energy, and as we previously discussed, the Universe has an origin (a beginning, as proven by Hubble's Constant and the Redshift of planets/stars) but at the same time, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so an 'origin' or 'beginning' can be ruled out.

    But wait, if the Universe has/had no origin or beginning, that would mean it is infinite, both physically and chronologically. But wait! As I previously stated, the Universe can not be infinite, physically nor chronologically, because again, if it were infinite in either or both aspects, it would have no present and it would not exist. This is quite a paradox - on one hand, we have proof that the Universe has an origin and a beginning, meaning it is not infinite (Hubble's Constant) and on the other, we have proof that energy (the Universe) cannot be created nor destroyed, (the Law of Conservation of Energy) meaning that the energy of the Universe existed forever (or, infinitely).

    How can this be? It just doesn't make sense. So does this (you need an account to see links) call for the existence of a supreme being that exists outside of laws, and proof, and physical/chronological reality, and logistical reasoning? In the Bible, the Christian Bible, it says that God is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the end all be all of everything that ever was, is, or ever will be. So, would this coincide with and back up His existence? Does this paradox call for the existence of something that can do literally anything - including overrule one thing that states another? I.E does this call for a power or force that can make a red apple also be blue at the same time - or make something negative be positive at the same time? Does this paradox call for a power that can agree with a disagreement? Or make something wrong, be right at the same time?

    The Bible says, "in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" nowhere in the Bible does it say how, he created the Heavens and the Earth. We have proof of the Big Bang, yet no proof of God Himself, so could God have used the Big Bang as a sort of 'medium' through which he created the Universe? Because again, he have proof and evidence of one thing, the Big

  2. #2
    Synth Salazzle's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    2,555
    Pronouns
    Any
    Userbars
    70
    Thanks
    4,522
    Thanked
    4,202/1,682
    DL/UL
    15/0
    Mentioned
    195 times
    Time Online
    76d 1h 42m
    Avg. Time Online
    42m
    Ah, seventh day Adventist. I lived with someone who was pretty religious in this sense.

    I do have some questions to present on this however.

    If there's an all powerful, all knowing god. Why would he choose the big bang to create universe? Why wouldn't he simply speak it into existence, why would this path, the long, difficult not even guaranteed way of creating life be the one he takes? This presents more questions, is god truly all powerful and in control of the entire universe? If he is then this makes no sense. And why would Earth be the ONLY planet that he chooses to rule over? Humans were created in his image according to the bible, if we were created; rather than randomly created by the big bang then how are we TRULY made in his image? What about the other planets in the entire universe? We can't truly be alone, and if we aren't then the other sentient species can't be created in his image. Why would god make a favored race in the design of humanity? It makes no sense.

    What this really boils down to, is why would god use a method of creation that wasn't even guaranteed to be a success? And why, of all the things created in the universe are WE the only ones gifted with being in his image (If we were created by chance in the first place.) And even if we're the only planet with sentient life, why Earth in the milky way galaxy out of everything out there are we the only planet he cares about?

    userbar: Charmander

    Roland SP-55 by: Honeycomb
    My contributions:
    (you need an account to see links)
    (you need an account to see links)
    (you need an account to see links)
    (you need an account to see links)
    (you need an account to see links)
    by: hearts
    Ryu art by dankRUSE

    Chegg

    by: Rattata


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Synth Salazzle For This Useful Post:

    Hubble (07-21-2017)

  4. #3

    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,274
    Thanks
    2,475
    Thanked
    3,916/1,641
    DL/UL
    19/0
    Mentioned
    733 times
    Time Online
    158d 26m
    Avg. Time Online
    57m
    I was with you until the paradox paragraph.

    It all makes sense but as soon as something doesn't, it seems that is a common thing to bring up God or a superior force that could explain things out, aka "these things don't make sense so in order to give it a meaning there must be something that doesn't follow all the rules of the universe that we just proved exist and act in everything around us". For me, this is just the human non-scientific way of thinking. I believe that we, as human race, still have a limited knowledge about many things, specially about creation of the universe... but bringing as a temporary explanation while we figure things out, the things that were written on a book by humans a couple thousands of years ago, is plain amusing in my opinion.

    The bible used to be the way people got knowledge back then, it was a primitive way to explain things out in a time where science was no developed and technology didn't give people a chance to investigate about what they could see. For this, the bible has some things related to creation and the universe that can make sense (because as you said, there are things that can be seen with the eyes, about stars, planets and so on). But it has a subjective way of telling since it was how people explained it back then inside that religion and time. For me "God" is the resource of "we don't know something yet so we explain it with that".

    So I think that, as long as our technology isn't capable of giving us the real answer or a more logic explanation, God or a superior force that rules the universe, will be the only resource for some.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Pusheen For This Useful Post:

    Hubble (07-21-2017)

  6. #4
    Stocking Anarchy's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,371
    Userbars
    11
    Thanks
    929
    Thanked
    1,627/650
    DL/UL
    182/0
    Mentioned
    145 times
    Time Online
    47d 8h 56m
    Avg. Time Online
    23m
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahsoka View Post
    Ah, seventh day Adventist. I lived with someone who was pretty religious in this sense.

    I do have some questions to present on this however.

    If there's an all powerful, all knowing god. Why would he choose the big bang to create universe? Why wouldn't he simply speak it into existence, why would this path, the long, difficult not even guaranteed way of creating life be the one he takes? This presents more questions, is god truly all powerful and in control of the entire universe? If he is then this makes no sense. And why would Earth be the ONLY planet that he chooses to rule over? Humans were created in his image according to the bible, if we were created; rather than randomly created by the big bang then how are we TRULY made in his image? What about the other planets in the entire universe? We can't truly be alone, and if we aren't then the other sentient species can't be created in his image. Why would god make a favored race in the design of humanity? It makes no sense.

    What this really boils down to, is why would god use a method of creation that wasn't even guaranteed to be a success? And why, of all the things created in the universe are WE the only ones gifted with being in his image (If we were created by chance in the first place.) And even if we're the only planet with sentient life, why Earth in the milky way galaxy out of everything out there are we the only planet he cares about?
    I am agnostic because I have seen too much weird shit to completely discount the possibility of a higher power. Are the members of my family brujas (witches), or are they mentally damaged? Depends on your background and spirituality. I don't know why when I was a kid playing with a Oujia board at a sleepover, when we were being little shits and started saying "burn me burn me burn me" to the board the windows in Terris room flew open (they rise up and down) and a big wind blew out all the candles while our hands on the marker were basically going in circles on the board.

    As for the bible, well man wrote The Bible. Man is fallible. Even if the original authors wrote everything down perfect as God intended, The Bible has been translated soooooo many times and there have been scriptures burned or erased from different versions that who the fuck knows what the original said. And Man being in Gods image, and our planet being the only one God cares about? Fuck I think that is just our own narcissism to be honest. Course a man is going to write about a God that resembles his father. Doesn't mean he is right. Some people still think God created the world in seven (24 hour) days and that dinosaurs never existed, are they right?

    For all we know, we could be one of a billion experiments of God. We could be toys, or reality TV to God. Or we could be her loving children.







  7. #5

    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    574
    Userbars
    7
    Thanks
    150
    Thanked
    157/104
    DL/UL
    31/0
    Mentioned
    68 times
    Time Online
    34d 6h 55m
    Avg. Time Online
    11m
    I think fundamentally churches don't do a good job at explaining theology. There are, as you mentioned, several theological concepts that answer these questions but the average believer never reads / studies hard enough to provide these answers. Unfortunately, the result is a lot of people throw the baby out with the bath water when in fact there is a way to reconcile these seeming contradictions which are the result of only receiving a watered down version of theology.

    We live in an Information Age now and it's sad how many people drop their faith because churches don't attempt to provide theological backbone - because that also means explaining that there is more than one way to interpret things. Historically, leaving that door open doesn't work well for a congregation and they like all of the loose ends to be tied in a digestible way.

    Anyway I won't get into my beliefs but I don't see conflicts here I see an area that should be studied and looked at critically with an open mind. If you're interested in these issues then you may need to read about theological perspectives with an open mind. That goes both directions from people who think it's false and to people who wonder if it's true. Science and reason doesn't exclude itself from belief.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to munsterpoo For This Useful Post:

    Stocking Anarchy (07-21-2017)

  9. #6


    haiqtpi's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    226
    Userbars
    6
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked
    316/158
    DL/UL
    19/0
    Mentioned
    120 times
    Time Online
    21d 35m
    Avg. Time Online
    9m
    We look at how ancient cultures, and even Native Americans used stories and myths to explain the natural world...how is Christianity any different? Why do the same ideas not apply? I have always hated how the religious right have always been all, "but science cannot prove for sure..." because it is such an idiotic argument, and proves that one simply does not understand how science works (or the hypocrisy of that statement, since they themselves cannot prove that their god did shit, let alone exists, except to "have faith"). We may, and likely never will fully understand how the universe works, but when we consider all of the natural forces in the world and universe, doesn't it make more sense that these forces are simply being personified in religion, as they have been for millennia? I just do not understand the arrogance of religions--particularly monotheistic religions -_-
    Queen Bee

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to haiqtpi For This Useful Post:

    Hubble (07-29-2017)

  11. #7

    Joined
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    47
    Userbars
    0
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    10/8
    DL/UL
    8/0
    Mentioned
    Never
    Time Online
    17h 11m
    Avg. Time Online
    N/A
    I believe personally, that whether or not there is a god, that it doesn't matter. The Big Bang did happen, it has been scientifically proven. If God or a god did cause that to happen... so what?

  12. #8
    tcas4200's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    163
    Userbars
    6
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked
    50/24
    DL/UL
    6/0
    Mentioned
    21 times
    Time Online
    4d 14h 30m
    Avg. Time Online
    1m
    Already good opinions have been brought up into understanding and even purpose for such a question. Still I have a few things I could add for interest.

    Although I strongly believe there was a big bang based on plenty of research, I take a step back from trying to such evidence to prove further claims or even taking the converse for proof on topics of origin since it's easy too easy to imply a truism while still missing the bigger picture. To me, these "facts" exist more in a vacuum (not going for a pun here ) and stating A implies B is completely ignoring {0,} events C that we don't know of or cannot relate without even questioning the validity of A within whatever assumptions underlie it to begin with. Even with very safe laws (e.g. 2nd law of thermodynamics where entropy increases) can easily be questioned by "why was there such a low entropy state to begin with" or my preference that "our understanding of the laws of physics is very incomplete to explain more than some limited phenomena". These laws themselves supposedly have time of creation after the big-bang in a supposed order (measured in very small fractions of a second).

    From an empirical perspective over recent history, our views on origins or beliefs have changed significantly based on new observations so I don't doubt that we'll discover even more to question what we think we know. Even entropy isn't well understood since there was a need to include energy as a subset of information as the real basic building block for now anyway. Cause and effect has been a foundation for any postulate yet it has been questioned/expanded merely by an experiment based on observation and delayed decision making (most concise video I recommend below with most excitement at 3m+):


    (you need an account to see links)

    As the saying goes, the more answers we find, we find even more questions. Making the above observations even more complicated and even potentially suggesting even more ludicrous ideas like how discrete Planck lengths, local max speed of light/conic sections, the above experiment, all possibly suggest we live in..... (the matrix) . I'm not a strong believer in this conclusion but it can't really be written off due to the terribly convenient analogies it has for finite computational power and even optimizations like culling. I won't link on this topic as researchers on both sides have strong/diverse opinions on this.

    And yet I think it falls to the individual. I think it matters less what is "real" than "what I perceive". One thought experiment on free will is that even in a world without free will, the illusion/perception of freewill is in itself free will and thus "correct". This mindset would also be useful for understanding why people labeled as insane make the decisions that they do since what is lacking is merely the perspective (as long as such persons intend to be rational in the first place). Such beliefs on what is real/correct is really only as useful as its utilization in your daily life putting further emphasis on perception over truth. On that note I can't even discount (most) religions for their foundations as they use the best of what people could understand for bring together communities/promoting positive values and they wouldn't even be too far off if the simulation concept holds......
    ...... in the end though, Futurama does the best job of summing it up satirically in 3 seconds:


    (you need an account to see links)
    Last edited by tcas4200; 12-21-2017 at 12:05 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •