Does the Big Bang theory make a God more, or less, likely?

Question

There is hard proof that creationism preached by the modern Christian Right is a load of crap. Sorry, but you saying it is true doesn't make it so. Your argument that evolution began with Adam (hence all the different races) is also crap.

Could it be that the real creationism was the begining of time and the Universe, and that evolution began then. When the Bible was written the Earth was the centre of the known Universe. Could it be that the writers of the Bible were mostly correct, just a little out in terms of time and scale.

Please do not answer that every word of the Bible is true and without error as this is a load of crap. Just ask anyone who has actually read it. "Turn the other cheek" and "an eye for an eye" are mutually exclusive.

Answer 1

~Actually, "an eye for an eye" is a command for mercy, not vengence and stands for the proposition that the punishment should fit the crime rather than be excessive retribution. However, as to creationism, nothing in science or the laws of physics supports the myth that a supreme being could exist, let alone create. The comtemporary Judeo-Christian mythology borrows greatly from the legends and folklore of earlier races and, in some instances (such as 'Jehova' evens retains the names of the dieties virtually intact). The fact that a fable is revered and repeated for millenia does not render it true, regardless of the number of people who may choose to believe it because they lack the knowledge or rationale to question it. When the bible was written, the stories were already ancient except as regards Jewish secular history. Yes, the seeds of evolution, and the universe in general, germinated with the Big Bang - but no divine intervention was involved. Science does not preclude biblical allegory - it simply explains in rational and empirically provable terms that which the ancient savages had to explain by superstition. Natural events, such as the evolution of man, happened but they happened as the inevitable natural consequence of the confluence of natural phenonena, not by the design of some clown in the clouds. If the authors of the bible were divinly inspired, why did they miss so much, such as the revolution of the planets (including the planets unknown to the writers) around the sun, the existance of other solar systems and galaxies, the existence of the dinosaurs, the existence of the continents on earth (where in the bible is there reference to Australia, Antarctica and the western hemisphere?) or even more simple and mundane things such as potatoes, tomatoes and corn? The text itself, in context, shows how ignorant of the world and natural laws the 'divinely inspired' authors really were. If a diety is going to make its creation known by a few select proffits, it stands to reason that those prophets would at least be given knowledge of the world as it existed at the time they were writing, but civilizations older than the Jews (the Anisazi or Chinese, for instance) don't even get an honorable mention. Creationism must be taken in its religious context and, as such, it falls flat on its face under the most tender scrutiny.
I suppose some diety could have caused the Big Bang, but what Big Bang created the diety in the first place? Early man had to create god, and every race of them did. Luckily, science, logic, reason, knowledge and intelligence have replaced the need for reliance on the crutch of superstitious fable, at least for those willing to question and think.

Answer 2

I agree with you and I am a born again Christian. I hate it when Christians don't think things out and they say, "I believe it cuz God said it." That's a person that is too lazy to dig for answers. Creationalism doesn't make sense and if there was nothing to counter it, I'd say, "Ok, if God wanted to make everything in 6 days, that's fine." But there is overwhelming proof of evolution and when you do a little research into both, you see that it coincides perfectly with the bible and even explains some things that didn't make sense in Genesis like where Cain's wife came from. It says in one of Peter's letters that a day to the Lord is as a 1000 years. What does that mean? Some people take every word of the bible as literal when some of it wasn't meant to be taken literal, like the word day and like the symbolism in Revelations. They attack what they don't understand thinking they are doing this good thing defending God but in reality they are not. Thanks for the great question.

Answer 3

actually you need to understand what an eye for an eye means but that is a side point.

I would say yes the big bang theory puts Science more in line with theology, but I dont think that the creation story should be taken litterly.

then again I think that animals all evolved from a simpler form. Even though I admittedly do not know how as of yet.

Answer 4

incidentally, you may want to research the actual meaning of "turn the other cheek".

I think the Big Bang is pretty cold and mathematical looking. It's so simple. A god that would start things off like that is lazy or semi-potent. But by and large, the trueness of Big Bang has little impact on the likelihood of a god.

If you are asking whether Christians should modify their stance to one that accepts Big Bang and makes excuses for why the go0d book doesn't mention it, I don't know. I think Christianity is made more robust and harder to kill when they all make their own customized versions of it but still maintain solidarity against nontheists.

Answer 5

I'd call it a draw for now. On the one hand, science has come up with a respectable cosmology and biology that explains the complexity and continuity of life and the universe without the intervention of God. On the other hand, they haven't come up with a testable or observable explanation for the beginning of either one. Those exact moments of change, from pre-universe to Big Bang, from organic to living, have not been satisfactorily explained. This leaves some room for God, not much but some. But science keeps trying.

Answer 6

I subscribe to the Big Bang theory and how it fits into current understanding of physics.

I also often think, who put the matter there in the first place, to initiate the big bang. I don't have an answer to that, but I still can't beleive that a 'greater being' started the whole thing off. To me a 'creator' is just a way of filling in the blanks of what happened before the big bang.

Answer 7

Many Christians believe in evolution within a species but not one species actually evolving into another.

There is no definitive proof that we evolved from single cell animals. You should do more non-biased study on the matter.

AND just because you say that there is doesn't make it so. It's the age old argument and NO ONE has proven anything. There are scientists on both sides of the fence. Who's right? Your people aren't right just because you want them to be and vice versa.

Answer 8

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it makes no claims about the presence or absense of a god. It describes, to the best of our knowledge, what the beginning of the universe was like.

Answer 9

Have you read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, thats about a scientist who was trying to proof that God is the reason for the big bang. It was a really good book!

Answer 10

Don't confuse the political doctrine "Scientific" Creationism with the religious doctine of simple Creationism: "God created the universe." The latter is fully compatible with the big bang and is your "real creationism". The big bang says nothing of the existence of God as we do not know the origin of the big bang. God remains a matter of faith.