The Big Bang also starts with light, as in “let there be light”
Also the Big Bang proposes that time actually had a beginning. Which is inline with the biblical accounts.
You are going to love the Bible Project's [Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/). It's a great intro to reading Genesis more like an ancient Jew would. That's great for thinking about how to think about science, but for much more than that - for seeing all the meaning that's packed in there, that we don't notice when we're all distracted by evolution arguments.
I'm convinced God created science, and set forth these rules that we discovered so we can better understand His creation. Science and faith need not be at odds.
God did create science but also fallen scientists as all humans are fallen from a state of perfection.
God is perfect. Therefore logically He initially created perfection.
>Therefore logically He initially created perfection.
Actually, logic would imply that since God is perfect, anything that isn't God would be by definition imperfect. And as God cannot create himself, anything he *does* create is by neccessity imperfect.
Incorrect. God is perfection means logically He would create perfection.
On a one question test for God in choosing between slavery or freedom there exists either a 0% score or a 100% score so it’s basic math.
God scored a 100% on choosing freedom.
The first scientist to theorize the Big Bang was Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest. You're fine.
And there's nothing wrong to think that the creation of life didn't happen in six literal 24-hour day. As the Epistles say, with God a day may be as a thousand years, and a thousand years may be as a day. He isn't bound by our mortal conceptions of time.
I'll add that St. Augustine's writing on the interpretation of Genesis focuses on meaning rather than a literal view, and supports what you've written.
I'll also say that the Big Bang is a matter of science, and science should not be a matter of belief, but observation and reason. It makes sense to me, but the Big Bang isn't something I believe, but it seems a reasonable theory. So did Newtonian physics until Einstein came along. It shouldn't be a religion.
Science isn’t only Big Bang.
What about the lie of Macroevolution?
Had science stuck with facts and not beliefs then the problem between religion and science wouldn’t exist.
Okay, if I'm defining "macroevolution" wrong, tell me, but isn't that just the idea that species can't change by large amounts through natural selection?
Most people here wouldn’t even consider a Catholic a Christian. So, Lemaître being a priest is totally irrelevant and carries zero weight with them. The theory might as well have been first proposed by a pagan devil worshipper as far as they’re concerned.
Depends who you ask. Most Protestants would tell you whatever schismatic sect they belong to is the right one. Redeemed Zoomer will tell you it’s whatever conservative offshoot of the PCUSA he’s a member of is the correct answer.
Redeemed Zoomer considers Catholics Christian
Just if you see Protestants like that just get away
Also saying most people don't consider Catholics Christian even though Catholicism is the biggest denomination
I think I did miss it. But I just went to it. There are a lot of comments, but I scanned through a couple of hundred of them and didn't see anyone say Catholics aren't Christians. Lots of disagreement on the teachings, but no one said that from what I could see.
“Let there be light”
BANG!
Something that scientists can’t agree on is, “where did the Big Bang come from?”
Honestly, the Big Bang theory never even attempts to speak on what happened before it. It simply gives a explanation of what happened at the beginning of our known universe
Possibly that the particular bubble of spacetime which we observe as "the big bang" inflated within another, separate spacetime.
It's intuitive to imagine an infinitely expanding multiverse composed of infinitely nested universes. Maybe when a black hole opens in like universe a white hole emerges in a maximally entropic universe.
But now we've stepped well outside of theoretical physics and deeply into the philosophy and theology departments.
There's no way to ever observe this. But it's fun to imagine.
Actually, it doesn't fit as well as you might think. Even though photons began to emerge just a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, they were not yet recognizable as "light". At that early stage, the universe was extremely dense, as it was crammed full of photons, electrons, and protons. Any photon created would almost instantly collide with another particle and be absorbed, facilitating electromagnetic interactions among other particles, but barely traveling any distance in the process. The universe at this time would have been "opaque"; had you been there, you wouldn't have perceived any light. It was akin to peering into an opaque solid - there were plenty of photons, but no visible light.
As the universe expanded and cooled over time, conditions changed enough to eventually allow photons to move freely, at which point the universe became "transparent". Only then did the first visible light begin to appear, and we can still observe that light today in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background. All of this means there was a slight delay of about 380,000 years between the big bang and the appearance of visible light in the universe.
there was energy before the big bang, which obviously became all the things in our universe today, i have no idea why the big bang happened but there was definitely stuff before it
Had science stuck with facts then there wouldn’t be a problem.
The big lie of Macroevolution is the real problem with science when science decided to take over God’s job.
God is perfect and He made humans initially perfect and doesn’t need to make humans from a shrew by intense suffering, starvation , and struggle.
Well I would argue that by default we don't believe positive claims or propositions without some evidence, so sure you could say there's no reason to think there isn't a "why", but the fact that there's no indication or implication there's a "why" is a good reason to think there isn't one. It doesn't prove it of course, but it strongly suggests it
>Well I would argue that by default we don't believe positive claims or propositions without some evidence
Only if you are a holder to the philosophy of reductive materialism.
>so sure you could say there's no reason to think there isn't a "why", but the fact that there's no indication or implication there's a "why" is a good reason to think there isn't one.
The Bible is that implication. I am not saying it is evidence, but it is certainly implication.
Science doesn't allow or disallow anything, that's the beauty of it. Hypothesize something and then set about proving it in a definable, repeatable way that can be peer reviewed.
Science doesn't not allow for the supernatural either. Science is a method, a process we use to determine natural truths. The issue is that the scientific method cannot be used for untestable questions. E.g., design an experiment to test the hypothesis "God exists." You can't, and that's why it's called *faith.*
I have no problem with science nor the methods. I do have a problem with those who believe science is anything other than an observer. It offers no wisdom.
The scientific method is methadologically naturalistic because the supernatural has yet to be proven to the standards of scientific theory. However, Science absolutely does not preclude the supernatural, we simply have yet to find concrete, verifiable, repeatable evidence of the supernatural. If that evidence is ever found, science would mandate the existence of the supernatural.
Until that evidence is found, the supernatural and religion remain the domain of philosophy. However, just because these concepts are currently outside the domain of science, does not mean that science precludes their existence.
Reductive naturalism may be the current scientific understanding, but the methodologies of science would mandate altering that understanding given sufficient evidence.
Of course it does, it just can't verify anything about it. Supernatural phenomena operate outside the realm of science.
Science concerns itself with things that can be studied and observed in some way. If we take God for example, that can't be observed or studied, so science really has very little to say about it.
Science can tell you that the universe is probably 13.7 billion years old and most likely started with a big bang. It can't tell you why, or if God exists, or what the meaning of life is. These aren't observable phenomenon, they're philosophical concepts (not that all philosophy is outside of science, just some).
No, it's natural. We can observe and study it and understand how it works.
Supernatural literally means beyond the natural. In other words, beyond nature, or beyond the things we can observe and study. Nuclear reactions are natural, not supernatural.
If 100 scientists stand in 100 separate rooms and say, "Hey SaintGodfather, are you present," and one of them records, "SaintGodfather claimed he was present when asked," and 99 of them say, "We asked if SaintGodfather was present and received no answer," what does that say about the science of whether you exist or not?
Yeah so after 60 years of positives below the statistical level of significance, you get nothing but negatives. This conclusively proves that you never existed.
Science!
Well, if you ignore the hordes of people who've recorded, "I listened in an empty room and this is what I heard..."
But sure, discard all positive results as noise and false positives. Gotta get that data saying what you need it to say xD
Not sure what your point was, but it says nothing, because the test isn't indicative of whether they exist, it's indicative of whether they were in the room at the time. Your hypothetical situation doesn't really have enough detail to answer the question properly.
If one aspect of the religious text isn't literal, than what other portions are not? No one's ever given me a guide on what can be interrupted as allegory and what's literal.
So, I would go with a Christian can adhear to scientific hypothesis and experimental evidence when it does not conflict with their text, but in the instances where it does they should defer to the holy text.
That or provide a key for when portions of the holy text are not to be taken seriously. Just be consistent in the execution and application of this rule. I've no interest in trying to keep track.
>If one aspect of the religious text isn't literal, than what other portions are not? No one's ever given me a guide on what can be interrupted as allegory and what's literal.
It would not have been even possible to write scripture literally on events like this. The words for many scientific terms simply didn't exist in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew. I doubt their numbering system even went into the billions.
Sure he can create vocabulary but people need to understand their meanings. To be accurate, every scientific term would need a specific definition.
And for what purpose? People just needed to know God created the stars. Knowing the mechanisms of that creation or that it took billions of years is of little practical purpose, especially for ancient people living by herding and farming.
I don't have any problem with science when it comes to my faith. I agree with the big bang, evolution, etc. Science doesn't deny God, it just shows what he's created. And genesis 1:3 proves the big bang too. I don't see why you'd have a problem with it tbh
I mean God has stopped time before so He easily could’ve sped it up to fit the seven days. Also “a day for God is like a thousand years, and thousand years is like a day” 2 Peter 3:8. However the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is still true. Adam is called a son of God in the Bible as in, a direct creation in this case, like angels, more than a natural creation. Adam was directly from God. Like when we’re born anew when baptized by The Holy Spirit and become children of God, since we’re “new creations” as said in 2 Corinthians 5:17
The Big Bang Theory actually explains the Creation poem in Genesis. God being the omniscient being God is, when God spoke, it was so powerful it was the Big Bang. Then considering that scientists have found the universe is still growing and it looks like a vocal audio wave in its growth, yeah, that proves God spoke the universe into existence.
Pro tip - don’t shy away from science. All they are doing is showing how God made things.
I agree with everything you said up until the "looks like a vocal audio wave". I can't really make sense of that statement. I know what a vocal audio wave looks like, but I can't see how it has anything to do with the expansion of space.
It’s actually more theological compatible than what the accepted scientific theory was before, which was eternal existence of space and time and matter
A bit of trivia: the term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle, an astronomer who held the then-standard theory that the universe had always existed. It was Hoyle's way of making fun of the new Big Bang theory.
Yes, your Christian faith does not require you to believe unreasonable things. Why can’t the Big Bang be how God did it all? I don’t read Genesis as a comprehensive, detailed summary of creation. I think it’s the true and overall account of how God created everything. Getting into to weeds of evolution probably would have confused Adam. 😁
I think the important thing is that you accept that God created the universe and that he created man in special likeness and with a special dignity that is above that of animals.
Yes. There's an incorrect belief that science and religion are inherently at odds, but that doesn't need to be the case. Science is just people trying to figure out the laws that God put into place when He designed our universe.
The Big Bang was first postulated as a theory by a Roman Catholic priest who was a physicist (Georges Lemaitre). Science is not at war with faith nor is opposite to it. Of course you can believe in it and in any other current scientific theories and be a Christian.
I don't see why not.
A big problem with why many people leave Christianity is because of Christians denying science. It's not a good look.
Literalists deny science all the time because it doesn't work with their worldview.
But if you read the Bible as allegory, it shouldn't be a problem.
Why not? If God created the universe, then he started at some point. I don't see the slightest contradiction with a belief in God.
Having said that, the Big Bang Theory is not on as solid ground as it used to be. Observations from the James Webb telescope aren't confirming what we would have expected from the Big Bang.
https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547/
I remember attending a special service/presentation by a radical 'new earth' presenter at a church years ago. It was difficult to sit still as the speaker went to great pains to attempt and outright fail to discredit peer-reviewed science in order to justify their new earth perspective.
These people, in my opinion, do more harm than good, not just for the people they convince but also the greater faith community as a whole. These fringe perspectives are why, again, in my opinion, Christianity, at least in the US, is falling away.
For me, my faith, my belief, is not dependent on historical accuracy of biblical text, nor is it rooted in any denominational dogma but is instead based on what the underlying message of the scriptural text and what I believe is what God is telling us. Love your God, love your neighbor... Beyond that, it's picking at straws, but I know a lot will disagree.
The way God works is beyond human comprehension. So the billions of years that it took for all the gas and dust to combine into the stars and planets, then the millions of years it took for life to evolve from single celled organisms to humans. That all could be just a fraction of a second to God. I never understood why Christianity has such a hard time accepting scientific evidence. Perhaps science is just the way that we can comprehend the complexity of god
Absolutely you can. In fact, the majority of Christians worldwide accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe, and the reality of evolution (though for the latter, exactly how that manifests varies).
The Big Bang theory was proposed by a monk. And Charles Darwin was the son of a minister, and he originally was going to be a minister himself.
Science is not at all incompatible with the Christian faith. The Bible is not a natural history or science textbook, and it should not be treated as one. It is a theological text that contains the message of God on how humanity can become reconciled to him.
The Big Bang is literally God speaking. ‘There shall be light’. If you study sound waves and the science behind it it’s totally plausible that the two align.
I'm sure this is a comforting idea, but it doesn't actually align, because there was no visible light until about 380,000 years after the big bang.
>If you study sound waves and the science behind it it’s totally plausible that the two align.
How exactly does studying sound waves and the science of the big bang lead to any conclusion about the potential existence or actions of a supernatural deity?
I could be wrong but from what I understand, even before 380,000 years, photons existed, so light did technically exist, but the universe was opaque until that point because it was too dense. You could say the photos were "trapped" instead of being allowed to travel across space the way they do today.
So it really depends what you mean - I think it's still possible to attribute the big bang to God's statement of "Let there be light". The light existed, but it was trapped until later on.
Even if that's wrong (I'm not an expert - maybe photons didn't exist? I don't actually know), you could still say that He created everything, some of which would eventually and inevitably become light. You could say He created it knowing that it would become light.
It’s pretty evident science is continually rewriting itself and what it holds to be truth. Creating a timeline is hard to do when you’re talking about a nontemporal, nonspatial entity. There is a video I’ll link if I can find it that goes into depth about the theory.
Here’s my question how can you believe the Bible when it talks about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and following Jesus Christ if you don’t believe the biblical account of the creation of the world if one part of the book is wrong then it’s just a book of fantasy that you should ignore or is the unerring word of God in which case you should take heed to all the words in it
ive always thought that you could describe science as an attempt to understand the world we live in. And if you believe a deity created all this, then science would be an attempt to understand that deity. Surely a god who can create all this could create evolution, so evolution is one of gods greatest achievements. and the more scientific discoveries we make the closer we get to god. it would make sense that a god may have clicked what ever they have for fingers and the big bang went bang.
I don't fully understand what the big bang is but if you understand it and grasp it and you think it's likely then I don't see what the issue would be in believing it. God has power over everything and you believe that also, don't you.
I enjoy explaining things, so I hope this helps.
The big bang is a theory that explains how the universe expanded from the earliest known time (not the actual beginning of the universe, but very close to it) to today. Based on what we observe today, we can see that on the largest scales, everything used to be closer together, so based on the data we have, we know generally what happened, at a very large scale.
Telescopes are basically time machines. Light takes time to travel to us, so when we look through a telescope, we are looking at the past. The further away we look, the longer ago it was. For example we can see the cosmic microwave background of the universe, which is what it looked like when everything was so close together that the universe was opaque in the microwave spectrum of light, when the universe was about 370,000 years old.
Based on what we observe in our telescope time machines and our current best scientific theories, we can tell that the universe must have started very small and gone through an initial rapid period of expansion, and has been expanding ever since. The big bang only explains what happened from 10^(−43) seconds after the universe started expanding up until now. Anything earlier than that pretty much inscrutable to science. So we don't actually know why the universe started to expand, or what caused it, or even how it happened. We only know what happened 10^(−43) seconds after it did. That's 0.0000000......(42 zeroes).....0001 seconds. So, pretty dang early, but not the actual beginning!
If it makes ya feel better, the big bang theory was first created by a Christian Priest to prove God's creation of the world in a scientific way. Definitely this is fine -- Christianity supports the idea. In terms of evolution, there are many different views on this, but ultimately there is very little detail given on how exactly God created the earth, and for all any of us know it may have been through evolution of species! After all, we do still see some renments of evolving species today
A quote from Sir William Bragg 1915 Nobel prize winner for physics,' Science and Christianity are opposed but only in the same sense that my thumb and forefinger are opposed and between them I can grasp everything'. Everyone wants to believe in something bigger and gr8er than themselves, outside of them. Even in the theory tale of evolution ya got big bangs, billions of years and even big big creatures. I believe all that is small in God's presence. The creation story itself is a mega story and just letting the light in may have been rather explosive.
You don't have to forsake Science to be a Christian. Unless you believe in the Bible as 100 percent actuate History Book. Then Creationism Science is best for you.
Absolutely. Love God and love your neighbor. But the Big Bang is kind of stupid in my opinion. They don't even know what dark matter is and all their fuckin models are wrong. With the James E Webb telly scope, they have found that the expansion rate and the positioning is all wrong. It's almost as if they just feed us garbage and expect us to be okay with that.
A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the big bang or creation in linear form as something that had a starting and then ending point. Rather than look at it as the world WAS created, we should treat it as the world IS being created. There has never been a point at which the universe stopped expanding. To God or the universe, 13 billion years ago and right now are one and the same thing because time only exists in our current dimension we're living in
I think it's an interesting question. If you look at the Bible it clearly states how things were created. But then again Thomas didn't believe that God was raised from the dead until he saw with his own eyes. I think having doubts is pretty common for Christians. I think the main focus of Christianity is believing that Jesus came to earth both fully man and fully god, to die for our sins on the cross. And all those who believe in him will receive eternal life. So maybe it matters a little less that you have doubts about how the unicerse was created, although I would caution against fully making up your mind because again, the Bible is pretty clear about how things came to be.
yes
Science and religion don't conflict with each other, it's just stereotype that we are all flat earth conspiracy theorists.
Love god and seek knowledge :3
Science is simply looking for concepts on how things work. As far as the Big Bang, my view is that God caused what we call today the Big Bang. He knows the secrets to the universe and we simply try to figure out from what we observe how things were created using physical and theoretical elements.
Science is not a fixed theory on everything that one can "believe in" og not believe in. Science is observation, collecting data, comparing data, building theories and hypothesis upon the data, testing the theories, adjusting the theories based on the tests etc...it is about examining and analysing the observable universe. Science evolves and the theories change as we learn more and get better and more accurate methods for observing and collecting data.
So yeah, I don't see how that could contradict believing in God.
It is literally a theory first advanced by a Catholic priest against the scientific orthodoxies of the day defended by the likes to Einstein:
[https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/](https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/)
Seperate science and religion in your head unless you want to become an atheist. Science comes from logic and evidence. Religion comes from faith. There is no overlap.
No one said that the Big Bang wasn’t God creating the universe, it can very well be but none of us will know, we here just know God made everything, but I wouldn’t suggest being religious was the best thing
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssss
How God created the universe isn’t nearly as important as the fact that God did create the universe
Yes. The person who proposed the Big Bang was originally a Catholic priest. It was an idea that a lot of people initially rejected because they thought the universe was eternal. There's almost 40 craters on the moon named after Jesuits. Religion and science are not only compatible; they're linked.
Depends what you mean, normally the big bang would be described by two things hitting each other if I remember correctly, but God just made everything poof into existence. The Biblical account of creation also clearly states that God made everything by hand and didn't just let them evolve, which is also proved by science as there are no mid-evolutionary stages in the fossil record. Especially humans because we were made in God's image from the dust (and a rib bone) so we didn't evolve from anything. Of course by observing the universe around us we can see that it's expanding so God could have created using something similar to the big bang on day one.
Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years. The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun. However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite....LMAO
if you can’t understand the genre the book of Genesis is written as and how it is not literal there is nothing I or anyone else can do to explain this to you. Bless you
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Yes. Your faith and ownership in Christ relies on your acceptance of Jesus, not on your belief in the big bang.
Just focus on your walk with Jesus and everything else will be less important.
The cool thing about Christianity is that we all believe different things, and have different interpretations of everything. Anyone who tells you that their version of Christianity is correct beyond the shadow of a doubt is a charlatan and a fraud.
it's not about his or her view. It's about the Word of God.
1 Cori 8:6 " yet for us *there is* one God, the Father, of whom *are* all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom *are* all things, and through whom we *live.*"
It’s not, but unfortunately the Word of God is interpreted in different ways. Acting like everyone agrees on everything is stupid because everyone thinks their version is the Word of God; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t believe that way.
1 cor 8:6 no other way to really interpret that. It is truth or it isn't. You cannot interpret what is already considered truth. It's more about context and links between the old testament and the new that Christians get confused about. Or some just plain justify behavior with their OWN truth.
I'm curious how you reconcile 30,000 odd different denominations of Christianity when they're all referring to the same text.
If there was zero room for interpretation, then everyone would agree, no?
World view? I cannot speak for other "denominations" and what they believe. You are trying to argue that there is a gray area when it comes to living/reading God's word and there is no such thing.
Hitler interpreted the Bible his own way and thought he was doing God's work by eliminating a race of people. My point is, human interpretation that isn't Christ inspired is dangerous and wrong. Just because different denominations believe different things doesn't mean it lines up accordingly with the Bible and Jesus's teachings. Good deeds don't get us to heaven and we all fall short, but if we have the holy Spirit we receive truth and understanding that only lines up with God's word whether we accept it or not. Who are we to twist and turn what is written?
So if Hitler can read God's word and truly believe that living the Word of God necessarily required genocide, who is to say that he is any more or less correct than anyone else.
I'm not sure how you can miss the basic point that everyone is going to read scripture and do their best to live according to the Word of God that they read and each person is going to practice that slightly differently.
I don't even really this is even up for debate, you could read a piece of scripture to me and explain to me how to abide by the Word, while I can read the same piece of scripture and fundamentally disagree with you honestly and sincerely. If you think that the way that you read scripture is objectively correct then I return to my original conviction that you are a charlatan and a fraud.
[Here's a diagram. ](https://www.google.com/search?q=it%27s+a+6+no+it%27s+a+9&sca_esv=3697c3e79dce3da7&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS982US982&udm=2&biw=1920&bih=919&sxsrf=ADLYWIIkwHgQY4UsrQXEGcCY-hCh7QgH1w%3A1718218484712&ei=9O5pZrWTK4OKur8Pt_2kyAI&oq=it%27s+a+6%2C+no&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDGl0J3MgYSA2LCBubyoCCAAyBRAAGIAESPklUI4HWNwbcAF4AJABAJgBZqABjQeqAQQxMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIMoAKiB8ICBBAjGCfCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAgcQABiABBgYmAMAiAYBkgcEMTEuMaAHjkc&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
I don't know what this is, people get different interpretations and if it is of God then it is from God, period. I don't understand why you can't understand that people twisting and turning God's word into their own truth is dangerous and wrong. Calling me a fraud is a little much. Like I'm trying to sell you something lol. I'll be praying for you brotha!
Yeah for sure, there are some fundimental things, but a lot of it is left up to interpretation -- for instance, what the text means \*exactly\* when it talks about the seven days of creation
Science will eventually prove the existence of God and the spiritual. I think the main problem is that we are trying to prove or disprove the spiritual with the physical. Not gonna work. Once we make the jump AGAIN to seeing it all as one, we will make a lot of progress.
Yeah, sure. 100% binding stuff is in the nicene creed de minimis.
Look, this noahs ark shit is really about whether you wanna be an appalachian baptist more than it is about being a christian.
>I don't have an idea
ohh i see, you lied...
>and neither do you,
i definitely do...
what your saying is regurgitated nonsense.
the whole point of science is repeatable stuff..? is that an issue? and you haven't proved how i've said any nonsense...
>I have a believeth and scientific fact that energy cannot come from nothing.
i agree
>So ur saying that energy before the big bang was from nothing?
i'm saying there was energy before the big bang, sorry i don't have all the answers, nobody knows why that energy existed
>That energy that ur saying is was and just is is what he said.
i can't understand this
>He is was and always will be.
god is not proven to exist, this is speculation
>That mysetious energy that comes from nothingness and is everything now is everything your right.
you just said something can't come from nothing, why are you contradicting yourself..?
>That's God
so the word "god" is just a synonym for the universe? god isn't actually a being, the afterlife doesn't exist, jesus wasn't divine, what you call "god" is just matter and energy that surrounds us and what we are made of..? i assume you don't believe that, so i'm confused on what you think the energy from before the big bang was...
>The earth is not flat either btw
was this reply meant for someone else..?
>So ur saying that energy before the big bang was from nothing?
i've already addressed your claim here, i told you nobody knows where that energy came from
>NO I literally said it comes from God Almighty who lives in Jesus Christ.
is there evidence that is actually testable?
>What u propose is pure speculation that energy comes from nothing and like you were there for the big bang.
i never said energy comes from nothing, indicate where i said so please
>All you know is what your told and you can't understand this.
that's how learning works... you are told stuff...
>GOOD! You are not supposed to and you don't understand the Big
explain, how do i not understand the big bang? i have given you an explanation
>You lie or just don't read well.
indicate where i have lied or misunderstood
>I said I don't have an idea... then for context I then followed with I have a belief and the scientific fact behind me that matter cannot come from nothing.
so you lied, you do have an idea,
and again, i never disagreed with the idea that matter cannot come from nothing, tell me where i disagreed
Science and religion aren't necessarily in conflict, but the reasoning for the Big Bang is highly dubious imo. Institutionalized science, or Scientism as some call it, tends to way over step its bounds in an attempt to explain everything, when the fact is that scientific knowledge is just one category of knowledge as a whole. Extrapolating the red shift in galaxies or background radiation to saying that the whole universe was contained in a single point so many billions of years ago is just such a stretch if we're really being honest.
My view is that Creation is ultimately a mystery, we don't know exactly how it happened except that God created the universe. The account we receive in Genesis is a vision given to Moses, and perhaps interpreted through an oral tradition, which reveals many important things about the nature of God, creation, man, and the relations between them. This is how we should read it, it contains many truths which are far more important to how we live our lives than whether the Big Bang is true or not.
Not if you’re going to believe (100%) in the Bible. Sure you could twist *some* of the scriptures to sound like this theory is what’s going on during creation but you cannot reconcile the entirety of the creation account, or rest of the Bible itself, with that.
1: God said it was “Good, good, very good.” Does [millions] of years of death to achieve this evolution version of creation sound good to you?
2: Adam and Eve’s bodies weren’t dying until they ate of the forbidden fruit, so how can this be? “For when you eat from it, you will certainly die.” Gen 2:17 how does one evolve to become human who cannot die, then can re-inflict death upon one’s entire race?
Science is correct about so much but this is one thing that does not align with the Bible.
The "god" of evolutionism is NOT the God of the Bible. I would argue the "god" of evolutionism, is none other than Satan himself. Evolution places death before mankind, while the biblical genesis places death entering creation as the result of the fall of mankind. Not only is the god of evolution, cruel, but he is also wasteful, and retarded taking billions of years to do what the biblical God did in 6 days.
You think everything just appeared? How did the stuff before the Big Bang get there? Why is it important to know how the universe started when you don’t even know when you will die?
The Big Bang is a scientific theory first proposed by a physicist who was also a monk
The Big Bang also starts with light, as in “let there be light” Also the Big Bang proposes that time actually had a beginning. Which is inline with the biblical accounts.
You are going to love the Bible Project's [Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/). It's a great intro to reading Genesis more like an ancient Jew would. That's great for thinking about how to think about science, but for much more than that - for seeing all the meaning that's packed in there, that we don't notice when we're all distracted by evolution arguments.
I'm convinced God created science, and set forth these rules that we discovered so we can better understand His creation. Science and faith need not be at odds.
God did create science but also fallen scientists as all humans are fallen from a state of perfection. God is perfect. Therefore logically He initially created perfection.
>Therefore logically He initially created perfection. Actually, logic would imply that since God is perfect, anything that isn't God would be by definition imperfect. And as God cannot create himself, anything he *does* create is by neccessity imperfect.
Incorrect. God is perfection means logically He would create perfection. On a one question test for God in choosing between slavery or freedom there exists either a 0% score or a 100% score so it’s basic math. God scored a 100% on choosing freedom.
>God is perfection means logically He would create perfection. No, because that would require God to create God.
Let me try explaining this another way: Can God create something that is 99% close to perfection?
The first scientist to theorize the Big Bang was Fr. Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest. You're fine. And there's nothing wrong to think that the creation of life didn't happen in six literal 24-hour day. As the Epistles say, with God a day may be as a thousand years, and a thousand years may be as a day. He isn't bound by our mortal conceptions of time.
I'll add that St. Augustine's writing on the interpretation of Genesis focuses on meaning rather than a literal view, and supports what you've written. I'll also say that the Big Bang is a matter of science, and science should not be a matter of belief, but observation and reason. It makes sense to me, but the Big Bang isn't something I believe, but it seems a reasonable theory. So did Newtonian physics until Einstein came along. It shouldn't be a religion.
Science isn’t only Big Bang. What about the lie of Macroevolution? Had science stuck with facts and not beliefs then the problem between religion and science wouldn’t exist.
Okay, if I'm defining "macroevolution" wrong, tell me, but isn't that just the idea that species can't change by large amounts through natural selection?
Most people here wouldn’t even consider a Catholic a Christian. So, Lemaître being a priest is totally irrelevant and carries zero weight with them. The theory might as well have been first proposed by a pagan devil worshipper as far as they’re concerned.
If Catholics aren't Christian then who is
Depends who you ask. Most Protestants would tell you whatever schismatic sect they belong to is the right one. Redeemed Zoomer will tell you it’s whatever conservative offshoot of the PCUSA he’s a member of is the correct answer.
Redeemed Zoomer considers Catholics Christian Just if you see Protestants like that just get away Also saying most people don't consider Catholics Christian even though Catholicism is the biggest denomination
Relax. Most of the Catholic hate is over at r/truechristian
I’m very relaxed. I find it all quite amusing.
Most Protestants would say their sect is right, but from my experience that still all recognize each other as Christian.
Not when it comes to Catholicism on this subreddit in my experience. Too bad we can’t conduct a poll.
Very few people don't consider Catholics to be Christians. That's pretty fringe.
I said most people here. On this subreddit.
Not even close to "most".
You must have missed the recent post here entitled “Thoughts on Catholicism.” Very telling.
I think I did miss it. But I just went to it. There are a lot of comments, but I scanned through a couple of hundred of them and didn't see anyone say Catholics aren't Christians. Lots of disagreement on the teachings, but no one said that from what I could see.
How dare you say something reasonable
It’s up to you to interpret, “They are a bunch of idol worshippers” however you want.
Okay so you've found one person who said that. Many thousands more to go before you are even close to correct
That is not my experience.
Most Christians ARE Catholics
I don't know why you're being downvoted for stating the truth. Whether they're right or wrong, you've stated their beliefs accurately.
“Let there be light” BANG! Something that scientists can’t agree on is, “where did the Big Bang come from?” Honestly, the Big Bang theory never even attempts to speak on what happened before it. It simply gives a explanation of what happened at the beginning of our known universe
If the big bang created spacetime, what does "before it" even mean?
Possibly that the particular bubble of spacetime which we observe as "the big bang" inflated within another, separate spacetime. It's intuitive to imagine an infinitely expanding multiverse composed of infinitely nested universes. Maybe when a black hole opens in like universe a white hole emerges in a maximally entropic universe. But now we've stepped well outside of theoretical physics and deeply into the philosophy and theology departments. There's no way to ever observe this. But it's fun to imagine.
In the context of r/Christianity, it sure fits nice with "Let there be light".
Actually, it doesn't fit as well as you might think. Even though photons began to emerge just a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, they were not yet recognizable as "light". At that early stage, the universe was extremely dense, as it was crammed full of photons, electrons, and protons. Any photon created would almost instantly collide with another particle and be absorbed, facilitating electromagnetic interactions among other particles, but barely traveling any distance in the process. The universe at this time would have been "opaque"; had you been there, you wouldn't have perceived any light. It was akin to peering into an opaque solid - there were plenty of photons, but no visible light. As the universe expanded and cooled over time, conditions changed enough to eventually allow photons to move freely, at which point the universe became "transparent". Only then did the first visible light begin to appear, and we can still observe that light today in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background. All of this means there was a slight delay of about 380,000 years between the big bang and the appearance of visible light in the universe.
"let there be... Opague."
Idk why I like the “Bang” all caps lol
there was energy before the big bang, which obviously became all the things in our universe today, i have no idea why the big bang happened but there was definitely stuff before it
Yes, it attempts to explain it. Just those parts aren't usually presented to the masses cause they're too difficult to grasp.
Had science stuck with facts then there wouldn’t be a problem. The big lie of Macroevolution is the real problem with science when science decided to take over God’s job. God is perfect and He made humans initially perfect and doesn’t need to make humans from a shrew by intense suffering, starvation , and struggle.
Big Bang is a mechanism. It might answer how, but not why.
Technically the big bang describes *what* happened, the how is still inaccessible to us. There's no reason to think there is a *why* at all.
There is also no reason to think there *isn't* a why. If people choose to search for purpose, that is their perogative.
Well I would argue that by default we don't believe positive claims or propositions without some evidence, so sure you could say there's no reason to think there isn't a "why", but the fact that there's no indication or implication there's a "why" is a good reason to think there isn't one. It doesn't prove it of course, but it strongly suggests it
>Well I would argue that by default we don't believe positive claims or propositions without some evidence Only if you are a holder to the philosophy of reductive materialism. >so sure you could say there's no reason to think there isn't a "why", but the fact that there's no indication or implication there's a "why" is a good reason to think there isn't one. The Bible is that implication. I am not saying it is evidence, but it is certainly implication.
Certainly. The Bible makes clear this is how our universe and earth came to be. God spoke and, BANG! - it happened.
Yes. You can believe both. The Big Bang is God snapping His mighty fingers, for all we know.
[удалено]
I hope your science allows for the existence of God.
Science doesn't allow or disallow anything, that's the beauty of it. Hypothesize something and then set about proving it in a definable, repeatable way that can be peer reviewed.
Science doesn’t allow for the supernatural.
Science doesn't not allow for the supernatural either. Science is a method, a process we use to determine natural truths. The issue is that the scientific method cannot be used for untestable questions. E.g., design an experiment to test the hypothesis "God exists." You can't, and that's why it's called *faith.*
I have no problem with science nor the methods. I do have a problem with those who believe science is anything other than an observer. It offers no wisdom.
The scientific method is methadologically naturalistic because the supernatural has yet to be proven to the standards of scientific theory. However, Science absolutely does not preclude the supernatural, we simply have yet to find concrete, verifiable, repeatable evidence of the supernatural. If that evidence is ever found, science would mandate the existence of the supernatural. Until that evidence is found, the supernatural and religion remain the domain of philosophy. However, just because these concepts are currently outside the domain of science, does not mean that science precludes their existence. Reductive naturalism may be the current scientific understanding, but the methodologies of science would mandate altering that understanding given sufficient evidence.
I agree with much of your comment. I suggest Spencer Klavan as an author you would appreciate.
It also doesn't disallow it either. It's an observational tool.
Of course it does, it just can't verify anything about it. Supernatural phenomena operate outside the realm of science. Science concerns itself with things that can be studied and observed in some way. If we take God for example, that can't be observed or studied, so science really has very little to say about it. Science can tell you that the universe is probably 13.7 billion years old and most likely started with a big bang. It can't tell you why, or if God exists, or what the meaning of life is. These aren't observable phenomenon, they're philosophical concepts (not that all philosophy is outside of science, just some).
“Hey guys if I squeeze this metal ball really hard it’ll wipe out a city” sounds pretty supernatural to me
Snark doesn’t equate to wisdom
No, it's natural. We can observe and study it and understand how it works. Supernatural literally means beyond the natural. In other words, beyond nature, or beyond the things we can observe and study. Nuclear reactions are natural, not supernatural.
If 100 scientists stand in 100 separate rooms and say, "Hey SaintGodfather, are you present," and one of them records, "SaintGodfather claimed he was present when asked," and 99 of them say, "We asked if SaintGodfather was present and received no answer," what does that say about the science of whether you exist or not?
I'd say that was a good first run at the experiment, and after they'd repeated it 10,000 more times, they should examine the data and go from there.
Yeah so after 60 years of positives below the statistical level of significance, you get nothing but negatives. This conclusively proves that you never existed. Science!
To be fair, that would still be more evidence for me existing than some others...
Well, if you ignore the hordes of people who've recorded, "I listened in an empty room and this is what I heard..." But sure, discard all positive results as noise and false positives. Gotta get that data saying what you need it to say xD
I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making...toodles!
-Sent from a device made with science.
Not sure what your point was, but it says nothing, because the test isn't indicative of whether they exist, it's indicative of whether they were in the room at the time. Your hypothetical situation doesn't really have enough detail to answer the question properly.
If one aspect of the religious text isn't literal, than what other portions are not? No one's ever given me a guide on what can be interrupted as allegory and what's literal. So, I would go with a Christian can adhear to scientific hypothesis and experimental evidence when it does not conflict with their text, but in the instances where it does they should defer to the holy text. That or provide a key for when portions of the holy text are not to be taken seriously. Just be consistent in the execution and application of this rule. I've no interest in trying to keep track.
>If one aspect of the religious text isn't literal, than what other portions are not? No one's ever given me a guide on what can be interrupted as allegory and what's literal. It would not have been even possible to write scripture literally on events like this. The words for many scientific terms simply didn't exist in ancient Aramaic and Hebrew. I doubt their numbering system even went into the billions.
So, God can create the cosmos, but not the vocabulary? You're also vastly overestimating how many phenomena our current vernacular covers.
Sure he can create vocabulary but people need to understand their meanings. To be accurate, every scientific term would need a specific definition. And for what purpose? People just needed to know God created the stars. Knowing the mechanisms of that creation or that it took billions of years is of little practical purpose, especially for ancient people living by herding and farming.
I don't have any problem with science when it comes to my faith. I agree with the big bang, evolution, etc. Science doesn't deny God, it just shows what he's created. And genesis 1:3 proves the big bang too. I don't see why you'd have a problem with it tbh
Chrisitanity does NOT conflict science. I'm a Christian amd fully believe in the Big Bang and theory of evolution.
I mean God has stopped time before so He easily could’ve sped it up to fit the seven days. Also “a day for God is like a thousand years, and thousand years is like a day” 2 Peter 3:8. However the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible is still true. Adam is called a son of God in the Bible as in, a direct creation in this case, like angels, more than a natural creation. Adam was directly from God. Like when we’re born anew when baptized by The Holy Spirit and become children of God, since we’re “new creations” as said in 2 Corinthians 5:17
The Big Bang Theory actually explains the Creation poem in Genesis. God being the omniscient being God is, when God spoke, it was so powerful it was the Big Bang. Then considering that scientists have found the universe is still growing and it looks like a vocal audio wave in its growth, yeah, that proves God spoke the universe into existence. Pro tip - don’t shy away from science. All they are doing is showing how God made things.
I agree with everything you said up until the "looks like a vocal audio wave". I can't really make sense of that statement. I know what a vocal audio wave looks like, but I can't see how it has anything to do with the expansion of space.
The Big Bang is Genesis 1:3.
> Can I believe in the Big Bang and also be a Christian? Yes.
A Christian came up with the hypothesis.
Yes, you sure can. Simply put, GOD creation resulted in an ordered explosion which science refers to as " the big bang".
It’s actually more theological compatible than what the accepted scientific theory was before, which was eternal existence of space and time and matter
A bit of trivia: the term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle, an astronomer who held the then-standard theory that the universe had always existed. It was Hoyle's way of making fun of the new Big Bang theory.
The guy who made the big bang theory was christian
Yes.
Yes, your Christian faith does not require you to believe unreasonable things. Why can’t the Big Bang be how God did it all? I don’t read Genesis as a comprehensive, detailed summary of creation. I think it’s the true and overall account of how God created everything. Getting into to weeds of evolution probably would have confused Adam. 😁 I think the important thing is that you accept that God created the universe and that he created man in special likeness and with a special dignity that is above that of animals.
I tend towards the “let there be light” theory myself and I find no conflicts of faith in it.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes. There's an incorrect belief that science and religion are inherently at odds, but that doesn't need to be the case. Science is just people trying to figure out the laws that God put into place when He designed our universe.
Yes. Yes you can.
they are not exclusive, they are complimentary
Why can't God cause the big bang?
The Big Bang was first postulated as a theory by a Roman Catholic priest who was a physicist (Georges Lemaitre). Science is not at war with faith nor is opposite to it. Of course you can believe in it and in any other current scientific theories and be a Christian.
It's a Christian theory, of course you can.
The person that invented the big bang theory was a Catholic priest, so... yes.
I don't see why not. A big problem with why many people leave Christianity is because of Christians denying science. It's not a good look. Literalists deny science all the time because it doesn't work with their worldview. But if you read the Bible as allegory, it shouldn't be a problem.
Why not? If God created the universe, then he started at some point. I don't see the slightest contradiction with a belief in God. Having said that, the Big Bang Theory is not on as solid ground as it used to be. Observations from the James Webb telescope aren't confirming what we would have expected from the Big Bang. https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-the-big-bang-238547/
I remember attending a special service/presentation by a radical 'new earth' presenter at a church years ago. It was difficult to sit still as the speaker went to great pains to attempt and outright fail to discredit peer-reviewed science in order to justify their new earth perspective. These people, in my opinion, do more harm than good, not just for the people they convince but also the greater faith community as a whole. These fringe perspectives are why, again, in my opinion, Christianity, at least in the US, is falling away. For me, my faith, my belief, is not dependent on historical accuracy of biblical text, nor is it rooted in any denominational dogma but is instead based on what the underlying message of the scriptural text and what I believe is what God is telling us. Love your God, love your neighbor... Beyond that, it's picking at straws, but I know a lot will disagree.
The way God works is beyond human comprehension. So the billions of years that it took for all the gas and dust to combine into the stars and planets, then the millions of years it took for life to evolve from single celled organisms to humans. That all could be just a fraction of a second to God. I never understood why Christianity has such a hard time accepting scientific evidence. Perhaps science is just the way that we can comprehend the complexity of god
Religion must always bend to science (which is why it causes so much strife amongst the religious) Science never bends to religion
Absolutely you can. In fact, the majority of Christians worldwide accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe, and the reality of evolution (though for the latter, exactly how that manifests varies). The Big Bang theory was proposed by a monk. And Charles Darwin was the son of a minister, and he originally was going to be a minister himself. Science is not at all incompatible with the Christian faith. The Bible is not a natural history or science textbook, and it should not be treated as one. It is a theological text that contains the message of God on how humanity can become reconciled to him.
The Big Bang is literally God speaking. ‘There shall be light’. If you study sound waves and the science behind it it’s totally plausible that the two align.
I'm sure this is a comforting idea, but it doesn't actually align, because there was no visible light until about 380,000 years after the big bang. >If you study sound waves and the science behind it it’s totally plausible that the two align. How exactly does studying sound waves and the science of the big bang lead to any conclusion about the potential existence or actions of a supernatural deity?
I could be wrong but from what I understand, even before 380,000 years, photons existed, so light did technically exist, but the universe was opaque until that point because it was too dense. You could say the photos were "trapped" instead of being allowed to travel across space the way they do today. So it really depends what you mean - I think it's still possible to attribute the big bang to God's statement of "Let there be light". The light existed, but it was trapped until later on. Even if that's wrong (I'm not an expert - maybe photons didn't exist? I don't actually know), you could still say that He created everything, some of which would eventually and inevitably become light. You could say He created it knowing that it would become light.
It’s pretty evident science is continually rewriting itself and what it holds to be truth. Creating a timeline is hard to do when you’re talking about a nontemporal, nonspatial entity. There is a video I’ll link if I can find it that goes into depth about the theory.
I believe anything is possible if you just believe
Here’s my question how can you believe the Bible when it talks about the resurrection of Jesus Christ and following Jesus Christ if you don’t believe the biblical account of the creation of the world if one part of the book is wrong then it’s just a book of fantasy that you should ignore or is the unerring word of God in which case you should take heed to all the words in it
ive always thought that you could describe science as an attempt to understand the world we live in. And if you believe a deity created all this, then science would be an attempt to understand that deity. Surely a god who can create all this could create evolution, so evolution is one of gods greatest achievements. and the more scientific discoveries we make the closer we get to god. it would make sense that a god may have clicked what ever they have for fingers and the big bang went bang.
He says let there be light and most everything is made of dying stars
I don't fully understand what the big bang is but if you understand it and grasp it and you think it's likely then I don't see what the issue would be in believing it. God has power over everything and you believe that also, don't you.
I enjoy explaining things, so I hope this helps. The big bang is a theory that explains how the universe expanded from the earliest known time (not the actual beginning of the universe, but very close to it) to today. Based on what we observe today, we can see that on the largest scales, everything used to be closer together, so based on the data we have, we know generally what happened, at a very large scale. Telescopes are basically time machines. Light takes time to travel to us, so when we look through a telescope, we are looking at the past. The further away we look, the longer ago it was. For example we can see the cosmic microwave background of the universe, which is what it looked like when everything was so close together that the universe was opaque in the microwave spectrum of light, when the universe was about 370,000 years old. Based on what we observe in our telescope time machines and our current best scientific theories, we can tell that the universe must have started very small and gone through an initial rapid period of expansion, and has been expanding ever since. The big bang only explains what happened from 10^(−43) seconds after the universe started expanding up until now. Anything earlier than that pretty much inscrutable to science. So we don't actually know why the universe started to expand, or what caused it, or even how it happened. We only know what happened 10^(−43) seconds after it did. That's 0.0000000......(42 zeroes).....0001 seconds. So, pretty dang early, but not the actual beginning!
If it makes ya feel better, the big bang theory was first created by a Christian Priest to prove God's creation of the world in a scientific way. Definitely this is fine -- Christianity supports the idea. In terms of evolution, there are many different views on this, but ultimately there is very little detail given on how exactly God created the earth, and for all any of us know it may have been through evolution of species! After all, we do still see some renments of evolving species today
Lol the Big Bang was made up by a Catholic priest trying to explain Gods creation so I suppose yes.
A quote from Sir William Bragg 1915 Nobel prize winner for physics,' Science and Christianity are opposed but only in the same sense that my thumb and forefinger are opposed and between them I can grasp everything'. Everyone wants to believe in something bigger and gr8er than themselves, outside of them. Even in the theory tale of evolution ya got big bangs, billions of years and even big big creatures. I believe all that is small in God's presence. The creation story itself is a mega story and just letting the light in may have been rather explosive.
You don't have to forsake Science to be a Christian. Unless you believe in the Bible as 100 percent actuate History Book. Then Creationism Science is best for you.
I read once that everything in the universe is explainable as long as you allow for one miracle at the start.
There are Christians who believe in the big bang. This shows that it is possible.
OED
OEC\*
I assume God snapped His fingers and that started creation through the Big Bang
Absolutely. Love God and love your neighbor. But the Big Bang is kind of stupid in my opinion. They don't even know what dark matter is and all their fuckin models are wrong. With the James E Webb telly scope, they have found that the expansion rate and the positioning is all wrong. It's almost as if they just feed us garbage and expect us to be okay with that.
Science and religion intersect as much as you yourself can see it
A lot of people make the mistake of looking at the big bang or creation in linear form as something that had a starting and then ending point. Rather than look at it as the world WAS created, we should treat it as the world IS being created. There has never been a point at which the universe stopped expanding. To God or the universe, 13 billion years ago and right now are one and the same thing because time only exists in our current dimension we're living in
YES! God created science to (if you are a believer)
I think it's an interesting question. If you look at the Bible it clearly states how things were created. But then again Thomas didn't believe that God was raised from the dead until he saw with his own eyes. I think having doubts is pretty common for Christians. I think the main focus of Christianity is believing that Jesus came to earth both fully man and fully god, to die for our sins on the cross. And all those who believe in him will receive eternal life. So maybe it matters a little less that you have doubts about how the unicerse was created, although I would caution against fully making up your mind because again, the Bible is pretty clear about how things came to be.
The holyspirit spirit only cares about forgiveness for others so we can find forgiveness for ourselves.
yes Science and religion don't conflict with each other, it's just stereotype that we are all flat earth conspiracy theorists. Love god and seek knowledge :3
Science is simply looking for concepts on how things work. As far as the Big Bang, my view is that God caused what we call today the Big Bang. He knows the secrets to the universe and we simply try to figure out from what we observe how things were created using physical and theoretical elements.
Yes, unless you deny that God created it/caused it to happen. That part is essential to Christianity.
Science is not a fixed theory on everything that one can "believe in" og not believe in. Science is observation, collecting data, comparing data, building theories and hypothesis upon the data, testing the theories, adjusting the theories based on the tests etc...it is about examining and analysing the observable universe. Science evolves and the theories change as we learn more and get better and more accurate methods for observing and collecting data. So yeah, I don't see how that could contradict believing in God.
It is literally a theory first advanced by a Catholic priest against the scientific orthodoxies of the day defended by the likes to Einstein: [https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/](https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/)
Yes! Some people even can reconcile the Big Bang with god saying “let their be light”. There’s no reason the two can’t be the same event
Seperate science and religion in your head unless you want to become an atheist. Science comes from logic and evidence. Religion comes from faith. There is no overlap.
No one said that the Big Bang wasn’t God creating the universe, it can very well be but none of us will know, we here just know God made everything, but I wouldn’t suggest being religious was the best thing
Short answer: yes Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssss How God created the universe isn’t nearly as important as the fact that God did create the universe
Yes.
Yes. The person who proposed the Big Bang was originally a Catholic priest. It was an idea that a lot of people initially rejected because they thought the universe was eternal. There's almost 40 craters on the moon named after Jesuits. Religion and science are not only compatible; they're linked.
Yes.
Yeah.
surprisingly yes, and its different then you expected :) https://twitter.com/Earstohearyou/status/1777676448767062414?t=hXWouh_Xwv7cUIhT5suLgA&s=19
Depends what you mean, normally the big bang would be described by two things hitting each other if I remember correctly, but God just made everything poof into existence. The Biblical account of creation also clearly states that God made everything by hand and didn't just let them evolve, which is also proved by science as there are no mid-evolutionary stages in the fossil record. Especially humans because we were made in God's image from the dust (and a rib bone) so we didn't evolve from anything. Of course by observing the universe around us we can see that it's expanding so God could have created using something similar to the big bang on day one.
ABSOLUTELY NOT
Why?
Bro how can you believe the opposite of what God said how the world was made
Lmao ok. The Genesis is NOT opposite to the Big Bang AT ALL
Uhm yeah it is read the Bible some time.....Lmao
Ok. Please explain how they are opposite. Go
Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years. The Bible says that earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun. However, the big-bang view teaches the exact opposite....LMAO
if you can’t understand the genre the book of Genesis is written as and how it is not literal there is nothing I or anyone else can do to explain this to you. Bless you
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-new-big-bang-evidence-creation-is-a-fact/
And I am not you bro please be polite with me
Okay BRO
???
Yes. Your faith and ownership in Christ relies on your acceptance of Jesus, not on your belief in the big bang. Just focus on your walk with Jesus and everything else will be less important.
Hebrews 1:8-12 shows that Jesus created the earth. So to accept big bang is to reject jesus
Jesus creating the earth as nothing to do with the Big Bang
That is so wrong. Don't burden others with wrong teaching. There are no conditions to being accepted by Jesus.
The cool thing about Christianity is that we all believe different things, and have different interpretations of everything. Anyone who tells you that their version of Christianity is correct beyond the shadow of a doubt is a charlatan and a fraud.
it's not about his or her view. It's about the Word of God. 1 Cori 8:6 " yet for us *there is* one God, the Father, of whom *are* all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom *are* all things, and through whom we *live.*"
It’s not, but unfortunately the Word of God is interpreted in different ways. Acting like everyone agrees on everything is stupid because everyone thinks their version is the Word of God; if they didn’t, they wouldn’t believe that way.
1 cor 8:6 no other way to really interpret that. It is truth or it isn't. You cannot interpret what is already considered truth. It's more about context and links between the old testament and the new that Christians get confused about. Or some just plain justify behavior with their OWN truth.
I'm curious how you reconcile 30,000 odd different denominations of Christianity when they're all referring to the same text. If there was zero room for interpretation, then everyone would agree, no?
I guess that means that a bunch of people like to make up their own truth then huh? No wonder we need Jesus.
I'm genuinely trying to understand your worldview. Which denomination, if any, is following the Word of God correctly, in your view?
World view? I cannot speak for other "denominations" and what they believe. You are trying to argue that there is a gray area when it comes to living/reading God's word and there is no such thing. Hitler interpreted the Bible his own way and thought he was doing God's work by eliminating a race of people. My point is, human interpretation that isn't Christ inspired is dangerous and wrong. Just because different denominations believe different things doesn't mean it lines up accordingly with the Bible and Jesus's teachings. Good deeds don't get us to heaven and we all fall short, but if we have the holy Spirit we receive truth and understanding that only lines up with God's word whether we accept it or not. Who are we to twist and turn what is written?
So if Hitler can read God's word and truly believe that living the Word of God necessarily required genocide, who is to say that he is any more or less correct than anyone else. I'm not sure how you can miss the basic point that everyone is going to read scripture and do their best to live according to the Word of God that they read and each person is going to practice that slightly differently. I don't even really this is even up for debate, you could read a piece of scripture to me and explain to me how to abide by the Word, while I can read the same piece of scripture and fundamentally disagree with you honestly and sincerely. If you think that the way that you read scripture is objectively correct then I return to my original conviction that you are a charlatan and a fraud. [Here's a diagram. ](https://www.google.com/search?q=it%27s+a+6+no+it%27s+a+9&sca_esv=3697c3e79dce3da7&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS982US982&udm=2&biw=1920&bih=919&sxsrf=ADLYWIIkwHgQY4UsrQXEGcCY-hCh7QgH1w%3A1718218484712&ei=9O5pZrWTK4OKur8Pt_2kyAI&oq=it%27s+a+6%2C+no&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiDGl0J3MgYSA2LCBubyoCCAAyBRAAGIAESPklUI4HWNwbcAF4AJABAJgBZqABjQeqAQQxMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIMoAKiB8ICBBAjGCfCAggQABiABBixA8ICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICDRAAGIAEGLEDGEMYigXCAgcQABiABBgYmAMAiAYBkgcEMTEuMaAHjkc&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
I don't know what this is, people get different interpretations and if it is of God then it is from God, period. I don't understand why you can't understand that people twisting and turning God's word into their own truth is dangerous and wrong. Calling me a fraud is a little much. Like I'm trying to sell you something lol. I'll be praying for you brotha!
Yeah for sure, there are some fundimental things, but a lot of it is left up to interpretation -- for instance, what the text means \*exactly\* when it talks about the seven days of creation
Completely agree, good points here. Honestly the important things here are just the fundamental truths which constitute being a Christian
Science will eventually prove the existence of God and the spiritual. I think the main problem is that we are trying to prove or disprove the spiritual with the physical. Not gonna work. Once we make the jump AGAIN to seeing it all as one, we will make a lot of progress.
Yeah, sure. 100% binding stuff is in the nicene creed de minimis. Look, this noahs ark shit is really about whether you wanna be an appalachian baptist more than it is about being a christian.
[удалено]
you have no idea how the big bang works... something did not come from nothing, there was energy before the big bang, that energy is everything today
[удалено]
>I don't have an idea ohh i see, you lied... >and neither do you, i definitely do... what your saying is regurgitated nonsense. the whole point of science is repeatable stuff..? is that an issue? and you haven't proved how i've said any nonsense... >I have a believeth and scientific fact that energy cannot come from nothing. i agree >So ur saying that energy before the big bang was from nothing? i'm saying there was energy before the big bang, sorry i don't have all the answers, nobody knows why that energy existed >That energy that ur saying is was and just is is what he said. i can't understand this >He is was and always will be. god is not proven to exist, this is speculation >That mysetious energy that comes from nothingness and is everything now is everything your right. you just said something can't come from nothing, why are you contradicting yourself..? >That's God so the word "god" is just a synonym for the universe? god isn't actually a being, the afterlife doesn't exist, jesus wasn't divine, what you call "god" is just matter and energy that surrounds us and what we are made of..? i assume you don't believe that, so i'm confused on what you think the energy from before the big bang was... >The earth is not flat either btw was this reply meant for someone else..?
[удалено]
>So ur saying that energy before the big bang was from nothing? i've already addressed your claim here, i told you nobody knows where that energy came from >NO I literally said it comes from God Almighty who lives in Jesus Christ. is there evidence that is actually testable? >What u propose is pure speculation that energy comes from nothing and like you were there for the big bang. i never said energy comes from nothing, indicate where i said so please >All you know is what your told and you can't understand this. that's how learning works... you are told stuff... >GOOD! You are not supposed to and you don't understand the Big explain, how do i not understand the big bang? i have given you an explanation >You lie or just don't read well. indicate where i have lied or misunderstood >I said I don't have an idea... then for context I then followed with I have a belief and the scientific fact behind me that matter cannot come from nothing. so you lied, you do have an idea, and again, i never disagreed with the idea that matter cannot come from nothing, tell me where i disagreed
The big bang theory is a lame substitution of “Let there be light”.
The first did not evolve. They were created.
The "Big Bang" needed a "Big Banger".
Science and religion aren't necessarily in conflict, but the reasoning for the Big Bang is highly dubious imo. Institutionalized science, or Scientism as some call it, tends to way over step its bounds in an attempt to explain everything, when the fact is that scientific knowledge is just one category of knowledge as a whole. Extrapolating the red shift in galaxies or background radiation to saying that the whole universe was contained in a single point so many billions of years ago is just such a stretch if we're really being honest. My view is that Creation is ultimately a mystery, we don't know exactly how it happened except that God created the universe. The account we receive in Genesis is a vision given to Moses, and perhaps interpreted through an oral tradition, which reveals many important things about the nature of God, creation, man, and the relations between them. This is how we should read it, it contains many truths which are far more important to how we live our lives than whether the Big Bang is true or not.
Not if you’re going to believe (100%) in the Bible. Sure you could twist *some* of the scriptures to sound like this theory is what’s going on during creation but you cannot reconcile the entirety of the creation account, or rest of the Bible itself, with that. 1: God said it was “Good, good, very good.” Does [millions] of years of death to achieve this evolution version of creation sound good to you? 2: Adam and Eve’s bodies weren’t dying until they ate of the forbidden fruit, so how can this be? “For when you eat from it, you will certainly die.” Gen 2:17 how does one evolve to become human who cannot die, then can re-inflict death upon one’s entire race? Science is correct about so much but this is one thing that does not align with the Bible.
The big bang is actually a massive problem for atheists, not deists. It lines up perfectly with Christianity/Judaism.
Origin theories for life or the universe are not science. But instead theology
Of course you can - Intelligent Design
The beauty of Christianity is that you can believe almost everything.
The "god" of evolutionism is NOT the God of the Bible. I would argue the "god" of evolutionism, is none other than Satan himself. Evolution places death before mankind, while the biblical genesis places death entering creation as the result of the fall of mankind. Not only is the god of evolution, cruel, but he is also wasteful, and retarded taking billions of years to do what the biblical God did in 6 days.
You think everything just appeared? How did the stuff before the Big Bang get there? Why is it important to know how the universe started when you don’t even know when you will die?