Begun to Exist

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Excuse my ignorance if I've got it all twisted around, but it seems to
me that Christians, when utilizing the "big bang" theory as an argument
for god, are not utilizing the same "big bang" theory as secular
cosmologists.

According to my understanding of the big bang theory as propounded by
secular cosmologists, the "universe" did not have a beginning. The
universe is the current phase of a prior state referred to as a
"singularity." This "singularity" exploded and, as a result, we have the
universe we see today. I note that the Christian theory of the big bang
is modeled along these lines:

God --> Big Bang --> Universe

However, the secular big bang model is like this:

Singularity --> Big Bang --> Universe

The secular big bang model states that the EXPANDING universe had a
beginning. Before its expansion, the universe still existed, but it
existed as a singularity. There is absolutely nothing in the theory to
prove one way or another that the singularity had a beginning or a
cause.

Another problem for Christians is that the secular big bang model
specifically states that NOTHING can be known about ANYTHING before the
big bang. However, the Christian assertion that god produced the big
bang is a statement asserting knowledge of what happened before the big
bang, something considered impossible by the secular big bang model.
Clearly, Christian big bang and secular big bang are two different
theories and in discussions on the errancy list, I feel that we should
qualify references to the big bang theory as "Christian big bang" and
"secular big bang."

Errantists should not allow Christians to argue on the basis of the
"Christian big bang" theory while latching on to the scientific
legitimacy of the "secular big bang" theory. The errantists on this list
keep letting Christians get away with the statement that modern
cosmology has "proven" that the universe had a beginning. It has done no
such thing! It has "proven" only that the expansion of the singularity
into the present form of the universe had a beginning. That is not the
same as proving that the singularity itself had a beginning or was
caused by something "outside" of itself. (I put "outside" in quotes
because, again, according to the secular big bang theory, the concept of
something "outside" of the singularity is scientifically meaningless.)

Christians may argue that, well, "singularity" is just another name for
"God," but they are wrong! If my understanding of the secular big bang
model is correct, the "singularity" is as demonstrable by the theory as
is the big bang itself. Replacing "singularity" with "God" results in a
completely different theory...and one which, so far as I know, has not
been scientifically proven.

The present situation is similar to a debate between Darwinian
evolutionists and Lamarckian evolutionists where everyone uses
"evolution" without specifying which theory of evolution they are
referring to. The two are COMPLETELY different theories of evolution.

An additional problem for Christians is that the secular big bang theory
states that the universe is billions of years old. If the universe is
only a fraction of that age, or if the universe only "looks" billions of
years old, the secular big bang theory is voided, there is no scientific
proof that it is true and Christians cannot use it in their arguments.

If Christians argue that the "big bang" part of the secular big bang
theory is true, but the "billions of years old universe" part is
incorrect, then they are propounding a different big bang theory (the
Christian big bang theory) and they would need to present physical,
astronomical and mathematical arguments showing that the Christian big
bang theory is true before they could utilize it as a "scientific" proof
that the universe had a "beginning."

Yet another problem is that, SURPRISE, the secular big bang model is a
THEORY, just like evolution. It has PROBLEMS. There are certain
cosmological phenomena that it can't explain (but that it is supposed to
be able to explain). And the THEORY is not universally accepted and
there are serious, conservative astronomers who have their doubts about
it.

R. Xavier Osorio

• Previous message: Sacrifice
• Next message: ADDENDUM to: Re: Begun to Exist
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]