Explain to me how the belief that everything was created by the Big Bang v/s that God created it....?

Question

how is one more 'logical' than the other? atheists don't know how life began, do you realize your beliefs are just as 'illogical' as you claim Christians beliefs to be? we have faith that God created everything, you have faith that a scientist will explain to you how everything was created. so far, we have evolution from monkeys, a laughable theory, as part of that explanation. LOL

if possible, don't use my question as a reason to 'drink'. i would like some good answers, and i dont want to feel responsible for any drunk driver atheists this early in the day! :]

Answer 1

Evolutionist, will claim that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" From what?

And whatever they answer with, I will ask again until infinity.

They say that the Universe came about from a Big Bang that came from the Nothingness.

How did the something come from the Nothing? with testable evidence, (Theory is not evidence)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icLXzgg2IVI

Answer 2

Evolution doesn't suggest that we evolved from monkeys. Unless you're particularly stupid, you already know this and have taken to casually presenting a straw man argument against evolution as a preemptive strike against logic. If you're comfortable doing that, then I sincerely doubt whether you'll be willing to understand any answers here that aren't posted by people with your exact views.

But, on the off-chance... The differences are:
a) The Big Bang theory is presented as a scientific theory, not an unquestionable fact. It is the result of, and entirely open to questioning by scientists.
b) Scientists would have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by disproving such a well known theory. A scientist who presents solid evidence for an alternative theory of the creation of the universe would be likely to win a Nobel Prize. A Christian who disproves biblical creation receives the realisation that they're not going to heaven which, incidentally, is probably why you'll insist on ignoring these arguments.
c) The Big Bang theory is based on evidence. I'm sure you're not going to read any of that evidence, but you certainly could if you wanted to.
d) The Big Bang theory is the theory that best fits the data currently available. Biblical creation has been demonstrated to be false on many levels. The Big Bang theory has not.

Answer 3

It's not faith to accept evidence from experts. I have read many books written by cosmologists that explain all the pieces of evidence for the Big Bang. I don't just accept it on faith; evidence is presented, like in a court of law, and I, as the "jury", find the evidence compelling. And this question was a good one up until you said "we have evolution from monkeys". The Big Bang and evolution are two completely different things. You say "explain to me" but it seems like you've already made up your mind, so why should we confuse you with the facts?

Answer 4

Evolution does not recommend that we progressed from monkeys. except you're particularly stupid, you already understand this and have taken to casually providing a straw guy argument against evolution as a preemptive strike against good judgment. once you're delicate doing that, then I clearly doubt no count number in case you would be keen to appreciate any solutions right here that are no longer published with the help of human beings with your perfect perspectives. yet, on the off-risk... the transformations are: a) the super Bang thought is provided as a medical thought, no longer an unquestionable fact. that's the consequence of, and entirely open to questioning with the help of scientists. b) Scientists might have no longer something to lose and lots to earnings with the help of disproving the kind of properly generic thought. A scientist who provides good evidence for an selection thought of the introduction of the universe may well be probable to win a Nobel Prize. A Christian who disproves biblical introduction gets the realisation that they do no longer seem to be going to heaven which, by the way, is probable why you will insist on ignoring those arguments. c) the super Bang thought is in reaction to evidence. i'm specific you're unlikely to envision any of that evidence, yet you certainly ought to in case you wanted to. d) the super Bang thought is the thought suitable suits the records at the instant obtainable. Biblical introduction has been confirmed to be fake on many tiers. the super Bang thought has no longer.

Answer 5

Starting with the premise:

Anything as complex as the universe needs a creator.

Then:

The universe must have be created by a god. But to create a complex universe we need a complex creator. From the assumption at the top god MUST have a creator of his own.

So god must have been created by god^2. But to create a complex god^2 we need a complex creator. From the assumption at the top god^2 MUST have a creator of his own.

So god^2 must have been created by god^3. But to create a complex god^3 we need a complex creator. From the assumption at the top god^3 MUST have a creator of his own.



And so on in an infinite regression.

The only logical conclusion is that the premise is wrong. Complex objects therefore do not need a creator.


So we have two options:

A complex, sentient god spontaneously came into existence or was always in existence. And then made the universe.

Or
A simple non sentient universe spontaneously came into existence or was always in existence.

Which is more likely? The simple solution or the complex one?


This is purely a logical argument. Please go ahead and prove it wrong.

As for evolution, and humans evolving from primates. Why is this so laughable? If it is laughable why do thousands of highly educated scientists claim it to be a fact? Why does the Catholic Church accept it as true? Please put aside your preconceptions for a few minutes and actually think about this.

Answer 6

First of all, the big bang has evidence, there isn't any hope that it is real. It's not like we are losing out if it is wrong, but in your case, you are. Big time.

"Evolution from monkeys, a laughable theory"
Haha. Are you now the expert on everything. A couple of things are wrong with this statement:
1. We didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them.
2. A laughable theory? Evolution is well supported by evidence. It is there. That's like calling gravity a "laughable theory"
3. Even the Catholic Church doesn't deny evolution.

Answer 7

Easy. The Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution are both scientific theories, i.e. based on logic. Creationism doesn't even explain anything, just who supposedly did it. Imagine someone asking how one can possibly build something as complex as a computer. The answer "they're built by Dell" isn't very interesting is it?

Answer 8

It is not theory, it is scientific fact. We atheists have scientific evidence to support our theories. Religious types just use the logic of inserting God into things that they cannot explain. It is really bad logic to say, "The big bang theory can't be proven, therefore God must have created the universe". The question you have to ask is, which theory is more probable? The big bang theory has evidence to support it while a theory of creation has absolutely none.

Answer 9

Well there are several reasons to think that the Big Bang happened.

- everything we see is red shifted, meaning the light waves are stretched out because it is moving away from us. This is similar to the shift in pitch when a train passes you blowing its whistle. The further away, the more red shifted it becomes. There is a single exception and that is Andromeda which is the closest. It is blue shifted because it is falling toward us due to gravity.

- The Big Bang predicted a uniform background radiation "echo" coming from all directions. It took decades to find it, but it is there.

- The same math responsible for the theory predicted Black Holes, they are there too.

- The same math predicted shifts in time due to speed and gravity, these have been experimentally verified.

- There are literally thousands of things that have been tested in particle accelerators that are in agreement with the theory.

I could attempt to explain the more modern M Theory but there isn't room here. It includes a root cause for the Big Bang and what was around before. There are several big predictions from it too, that are just waiting for a particle accelerator big enough to test them out. One is going on line in the fall in Europe that will.

There is no corresponding evidence or predictions that have been tested and verified by creationism.

Answer 10

Explaining the Big Bang Theory to someone who believes that scientists teach that we evolved from monkeys is probably a waste of time.

But here goes..

We have proof that the universe is expanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_universe

Stars are moving away from one another, we can tell this by measuring red shift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Something propelled them to move in an outward motion. Scientists and Physists say that it was probably some type of cosmic explosion. I choose to rely on these people for my belief, because they study these fields.

You choose to rely on pastors or priests, who in turn study the bible, which was written by men in the middle east 2000-4000 years ago. They didn't have a concept of gravity and didn't understand that every action has a reaction. Not one ounce of basic physics understanding. They attributed all things to a God, that they then dissagreed about for the rest of their existence.

The fact that your pastor is telling you that we evolved from monkeys, shows how undereducated he is. No scientist makes the claim that we evolved from monkeys, preachers make that claim about scientist to try and make them look silly. Which is lying.

Lion of Judah - What if matter always existed? You may not be able to fathom that, but it is what you believe about your God, so is it possible or not?

Answer 11

I don't understand how you did not learn basic physics in high school?

I was taught evolution and big bang theory in middle school in the late 70's, of course that was in London, but how can you ask such basic questions. This is not new knowledge. I can only assume that you are 12.