Posted on Nov 6, 2016
Theologians, there is empirical proof that the Big Bang occurred. Why can't religious dogma encompass this?
8.28K
229
120
12
12
0
I know this can be a contentious subject. But I trust this crowd to remain professional and polite. And I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
Most major religions are based upon the tenet that God is all-powerful. Given that, why is the Big Bang not a viable explanation for how He created the universe?
Most major religions are based upon the tenet that God is all-powerful. Given that, why is the Big Bang not a viable explanation for how He created the universe?
Posted in these groups: 
Religion
Religion
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 24
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SN Greg Wright - Sorry Buddy, He's a Redskin, but he loves you more than the Cowboys. That hole in the stadium must be the largest commode in the history of man, and the sh*t keeps piling up in there.
(4)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SSG Warren Swan I am not sure if God is a Skins fan, but I am confident that He hates my Browns.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
SN Greg Wright
Science and Christianity are not incompatible. If you believe God created all that is here, he then created all that science can observe and report on. Where science gets in trouble is they like to go far beyond where the facts lead. Creation for example. No one can point to any facts that say this is how the heavens were created. Believers accept God's explanation. Others accept science's hypothesis. They are both articles of faith as neither can be proven with material facts.
You also need to modify your post. There is no empirical proof of anything on the big bang theory if you use a conventional definition of "empirical": Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
If you have someone that observed this, please bring them forward quickly before they die of old age,.
Science and Christianity are not incompatible. If you believe God created all that is here, he then created all that science can observe and report on. Where science gets in trouble is they like to go far beyond where the facts lead. Creation for example. No one can point to any facts that say this is how the heavens were created. Believers accept God's explanation. Others accept science's hypothesis. They are both articles of faith as neither can be proven with material facts.
You also need to modify your post. There is no empirical proof of anything on the big bang theory if you use a conventional definition of "empirical": Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
If you have someone that observed this, please bring them forward quickly before they die of old age,.
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
It took the Catholic Church 359 years to say that Galileo was right. John Paul the II finally said he was no longer excommunicated. It takes time.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html
Vatican Science Panel Told By Pope: Galileo Was Right
Moving formally to rectify a wrong, Pope John Paul II acknowledged in a speech today that the Roman Catholic Church had erred in condemning Galileo 359 years ago for asserting that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The address by the Pope before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences closed a 13-year investigation into the Church's condemnation of Galileo in 1633, one of history's most notorious conflicts between faith and science. Galileo was...
(5)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
MAJ Charles Blake - I know I'm a bit late on this, but how can you put the two of them together? Usually it's one or the other and those who try to compromise are drummed out quickly. I also ask being in the Bible God made Adam in his image and it was good. He then took a rib from Adam and used it to make Eve. That is the religious end of it. Now scientists will say there was no Adam or Eve, no magical apple of sin, and Lucifer wasn't the snake. How can one make a good and articulate argument keep both sides interested, and allow the middle the opportunity to learn also? That also doesn't explain evolution. It would appear you are walking one heck of a tightwire. How do you do this?
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SSG Warren Swan - good morning brother, it's never too late to discuss philosophy (religious or political). Before I was Catholic, I did know people that think and act like you describe. I'm not putting them down, but I think they're missing the bigger picture. I'm not aware of the studies who refute Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden but if they're there then this is an article of faith. Hebrews 11:1, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for in the evidence of things not seen" or something like that. I'm quoting from memory here...
I like that the Catholic (which simply means universal) Church has had philosophers since JC cruised Jerusalem who have thought about how he converted Judaism into a new religion and how to reconcile those differences and what those differences meant to their spiritual view. Catholics teach the "mystery of faith". I can't explain how a miracle happens but I know they do. I can't explain why evil happens in the world either but I know there is evil (not people we don't like, but real evil) and it must have a source.
As for evolution, are people saying that it can't happen or it didn't happen? Are we saying that God could not or did not use the fact that things change over long periods of time? If God is all powerful, why couldn't he have used this? It's a fact that people look a little different than we did a long time ago. We're taller for one thing, there is a difference in bone structure - we changed. It's not a big thing, we adapt to our environment. Do you believe this is a series of random events or is there intelligent design behind it?
I like that the Catholic (which simply means universal) Church has had philosophers since JC cruised Jerusalem who have thought about how he converted Judaism into a new religion and how to reconcile those differences and what those differences meant to their spiritual view. Catholics teach the "mystery of faith". I can't explain how a miracle happens but I know they do. I can't explain why evil happens in the world either but I know there is evil (not people we don't like, but real evil) and it must have a source.
As for evolution, are people saying that it can't happen or it didn't happen? Are we saying that God could not or did not use the fact that things change over long periods of time? If God is all powerful, why couldn't he have used this? It's a fact that people look a little different than we did a long time ago. We're taller for one thing, there is a difference in bone structure - we changed. It's not a big thing, we adapt to our environment. Do you believe this is a series of random events or is there intelligent design behind it?
SSG Warren Swan
Sir it's science vs. religion, and that comes up. You have one side of the classroom who are believers, but on the other side, the science minded individuals. The believers want to convince the science minds that they are correct, but religion in a sense fails logic. Example would be Moses parting the Red Sea, just to be told by God, he can't go with them. Logically that's impossible, and you cannot put up a "feeling" against carbon dating, the movement of tectonic plates, all the things the science side can prove. I like you believe in miracles. I seriously wonder sometimes with the ignorant things I've done how am I here still? Yes. People are saying the way evolution happened in the Bible is wrong, and Jesus was a carpenter...a mortal man like us. Jesus being a mortal I believe is totally true. Evolution in the Bible vs. Evolution in scientific terms. It's challenging but in the science side of the house, it follows guidelines, theories proven or unproven. It also uses the six senses. I think I really don't know what to think, so I fall back on the one thing I have in my favor: training. I was "trained" to believe early on, I was "trained", to seek out the word, I was "trained" to let God assist you when you're at your lowest...he'll get you to your highest. In that I cannot be shook. No one can take it away from me. We can debate till the cows come home, but I'm standing fast. I just wish I could pray. Since I retired in 2012, I've been in the hospital four times. In each of them, they were cases where I was supposed to have died had it been anyone else. Blood sugar levels over 1000 is never a good thing when it hits suddenly. I can laugh now about it, and the last time a month ago where I dropped to the ground in front of my family unable to breathe. The EMT's said I had no pulse. I've never been so happy in my life. It was finally time to go...or so I thought. One of the EMT's was a BRO. Crusty old SFC, and that bastard got me back. On the good side of this, he never left my side until I was completely stabilized in the ER. That was two hours. I was mad, I was upset, and then it came to be calming not due to the drugs (they made it worse when you see eight men looking down on you from the ceiling and all you can say is I'm sorry over and over again), biut I'm giving credit to the Lord. It wasn't my time yet. Sir forgive me for rambling. In regards to religion and science, I think it takes a stronger mind to want to put them together. They won't always "fit", or pass muster with the academic crowds, but you seem to do it. How I don't know, and maybe in due time, I'll know what you know as i see, I hear, I understand, and I accept. It's going to come. Again I fell off track Sir and I again apologize.
BTW I've known this for years; there is no such thing as a non believer. You can say what you want to, but the second the crap hits the fan, you'll be screaming for God to help you. There are no Atheists in a foxhole. Another firm belief.
BTW I've known this for years; there is no such thing as a non believer. You can say what you want to, but the second the crap hits the fan, you'll be screaming for God to help you. There are no Atheists in a foxhole. Another firm belief.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google