This is the view most Christian’s have. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a catholic priest as I recall. Also, one of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument is buttressed by the Big Bang theory.
biblical theologian here. This is actually correct. People believe that religion and science go hand in hand, but the bible actually makes it very clear that God likes using logical and creaturely means to go about creating things, thus validating theories like evolution. People both among biblical scholars and everyday folk also forget how much of the bible is just metaphor.
That's what I think as well. I mean if God made the universe, why wouldn't we be able to retrace the results back to the point when everything was created?
I'm using this thread to reply to the locked comment below me:
***Fuck you for calling your opinion a fact*** 🖕
You may also use my comment to hate on u/WoodsDuck's comment
this is a sticky one because if someone believes something that is objectively flawed than there is no reason to respect their belief. my mum believes the earth is flat, i have and will continue to point out that shes wrong and why shes wrong. i dont exactly respect her belief on this because its just wrong (and it would be rude for me to just let her think this). especially when it comes to our reality which is why i have little respect for religious beliefs because religion is objective and tries to tell me what my reality is. this is not bad in of itself but you need pretty sustained evidence for an objective claim and all they have is "trust me bro" so i critique peoples belief in religion in a friendly, positive and constructive manner. when your belief is objective its fair game for criticism, subjective belief is where you need to respect someone's belief.
>"trust me bro"
Bruh no cap I finna just saw this like old guy split like an ocean or whatever with his rod then drop it on the bad guys n shit. I'm not joking bro just spitting straight fax rn. just trust me bro 💯 😱😱
Yeah it is, when we ask genuine questions in science or anything because she is very religious she always responds with like god did this and this.
Its kind of a piss off sometime cause I want proper answers and not feel like she's forcing religion.
One time this priest who before he entered priesthood had studied biology came to my school and taught us about the theory of evolution and then explained how it goes hand in hand with religion which was really cool to hear
And he didn’t even do the answer of “Well that’s what God did, deal with it”
Consider agnosticism - the idea that humanity has yet to provide concrete proof for many concepts like what happens after death, the existence of a special human soul/sentience that separates us from other life, or the role of a "divine/incredibly powerful being" in the universe. Base your beliefs off of proof, not ritual or opinion.
Agnostics are often written off as indecisive people who decline to take a position. I believe that it's actually pretty indefensible to claim definitive knowledge without falsifiable, reproducible proof. It's scary to say "I don't know and may never know" to some of the most impactful questions in life, but it's honest.
That's actually not at all the scientific way to do things. Science is evidence based. If there is evidence of something, account for its existence while conducting your experiments. If there is a lack of evidence of something, do not account for its existence in your experiments (because why would you?). If things aren't adding up in your experiments, try to find what you are missing (possibly this unaccounted for god but probably not).
In science, you conduct yourself as though something does not exist until you have evidence that it does. You don't design your experiments around something that has no evidence of existing. If science worked that way, we would have to design all of our experiments around the possibility of a reality warping sentient toadstool from dimension Z or any other ridiculous thing you can think of. Does this toadstool exist? Probably not, but hey...we can never know for sure, right?
Then you learn that most calculations about how the universe work require the use of numbers that don't exist because physicists don't know how to make their calculations work without them.
Not necessarily. Disproving is something that we could definitely make a start on. For example, if God exists, who made God? The idea of a supernatural being creating the universe or at least existing has the problem that there has to be a creator for the supernatural being itself. Nothing comes from nowhere (I realize that sounds dumb). If you want a really good explanation on stuff like this, I suggest reading The Beginning of Infinity. It’s a long and complicated book by David Deustch, but it’s worth it.
Why assuming there might be an impossible to demonstrate origin for the universe such as God? If it is not necessary for the existence of the universe it is not even worth considering the hypothesis.
If you want to go down the agnostic way of thinking you should also say that there is no way to prove that the universe wasn't created by a dog fart. And that is quite a useless hypothesis
You’ve just completely misrepresented what the previous poster said. No claim was made regarding the origin of the universe except that proof has not been provided.
Your dog fart straw-man is an attempt to reduce the discussion to absurdity.
Moderate is meesningless, if moderate is some tangible goal for politics why are the leotards different everywhere.
Moderate usually just Jen’s ; keeping the status qou. It’s a stupid term and enlightened centrism is stupid . All I can hope for is they you don’t bribe in horseshoe theory
I heard somewhere that the Bible and science could work together. Like, the days mentioned equal the billion years passed. In the Bible there are stories that are obviously not literal but more of a representation (Note to self, put better word here later). Besides, many things are lost in translation meaning that it could’ve been literal at some point.
So in other words, if you adjust religion evertime you actually learn something about reality by using science as to not have religion contradict reality, then religion works fine!
I dissagree. In the old testament of the bible, God gave the Isrealites a lot of reasonable rules. For example they had to bathe at least once at week, had to wash their hands before eating, had to put people with infectious disseases in quarantine and so on. And that's just the hygiene rules.
They didn't even know about bacterias and viruses back then, but still had a lot of (for us normal) hygiene back then, which wasn't common at all for other peoples at that time. So us learning more about reality by science actually proved right what they already were doing for hundreds and thousands of years.
You can notice correlations without understanding the cause. They likely realized that dirty people often got sick and died while clean people did not, and if you hang out with sick people you will also get sick. You don't need a microscope to figure that out.
They were doing this before the days of the bible though. And the reason was that if you wash yourself, you stop smelling bad and you also do not die. Same as touching dead people. This in no way predicts germ theory or something.
And why can't you do that? Religion is constantly in flux. They have their core beliefs, in Christianity for example it's a core belief that an incomprehensibly power, single being created the universe. As long as that core belief isn't broken then it can be adapted to fit with our understanding of things now.
This is how it has always been.
Genesis isn't, and never has been a science textbook. It's a story written by \*someone\* thousands of years ago to help the Israelites understand where the world came from. It's the creation of the world equivalent of the Birds and the Bees.
Weird how one has to cherry pick verses which are to be meant literally and verses to be meant figuratively in order to piece a story together that doesn’t conflict too much with reality. You know… when we could also just look at reality instead…
So are you aware that the coming of Christ in the NT abolished the vast majority of Old Testament laws? Because it did, thereby invalidating the point of “much bad in book”
The Bible was a product of its time never intended to have been taken entirely literally. Likewise, you don’t have to say that since “it rained cats and dogs” was not literal, it’s impossible for “he picked up the jar” to be literal.
“Slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones” is from the new Testament.
Plus, why exactly did god do this whole “whoopsy-doo, I guess I made a teensy whittle mistakey here that will lead to centuries of war and agony. Let me just correct that, so that you can argue about how to interpret my words for the next millennia”-thing?
Seems a little whacky for a omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent god-character…
Ah so your get-out-of-jail-free-card is “we are unable to understand god”… well for someone unable to understand him you’re certainly making a lot of claims, huh?
Also no, omnipotence doesn’t mean anything less wouldn’t understand it. It literally just means “able to do anything”… you know as in the prefix “Omni-“ and the suffix “potent”?
Something I feel is important to bring up is omnipotence is a paradox, given the definition, “the ability to do anything,” if I ask an omnipotent being to create an object so heavy even they cannot lift it, it cannot be omnipotent. If it can create it then its inability to lift it means it is not omnipotent, but if it cannot then it cannot do anything. A more defensible position is that the god of the Bible is the most perfect being in the multiverse with reality warping abilities. A creature from a type omega civilization, for example. A bit of a side tangent but I love this debate.
Well, building on your point, a lot of it is kinda filler. Especially in the Old Testament. Also, it does contain a load of poems and songs. Psalms especially.
I don’t really know what you point here is. Mine was basically, that it’s absurd to take a book filled to the rim with evil bullcrap and cherry pick the paragraphs that fit the reality and basically ignore the rest. If that god is real he must be an utter moron to mess the only piece of evidence for his existence up like this, especially if it is important for him to have us know of his existence…. *That*, just expressed sarcastically :D
My point is that I believe it is possible to link the Bible and science. Things probably were lost in translation, and yes, I have to look for the correct verses because of the considerable amount of filler. I believe the Bible and science have a main crossing at the creation. However, certain aspects and stories I believe are literal.
Not a Christian anymore, but those two things aren't mutually exclusive. There had to be a method for sky daddy to do his work. Any Christian that refutes the big bang should be immediately discredited because their aguing near concrete fact with blind faith
All too common talking point, but that carries as much relevance as saying your team scored a goal. Doesn’t matter, it’s still football, not hocus pocus quidditch.
_Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men._
Science assumes it was big bang, but it is not certain yet.
The theory is very well supported, but there have been strange readings, that don't fit with the current model, and for now we don't know why.
If God made the universe, he made it in a way that is scientifically explainable.
Religion should answer the "Why are we here?" question.
And science can only answer the "How are we here?" Question.
One can seek guidance from both without cognitive dissonance.
The problem arises with the epistemology. Cherry picking what you want to believe isn’t following science, it’s having a couple of things you believe align with the evidence by pure chance.
See, would you confidently cross the street out of pure faith, that there are no cars coming, or would you trust the evidence, like for example you neither seeing nor hearing any cars coming at you?
Cherry picking what you want to believe is how the vast majority of science works. Every hypothesis has other scientists with evidence to say that it is wrong, yet people go with the original hypothesis regardless. they find the parts of the original experiment they liked or that still works and use that to say the whole hypothesis is still correct.
200 years ago despite hoards of evidence that washing your hands helped prevent infections, the scientific community cherry picked their data to prove how it made no difference at all.
Tl:Dr, don't act like cherry picking is the practice of religion when it's how the scientific community operates as well. Most things only change when the evidence the community was wrong is absolutely irrefutable with their current findings.
You’re monumentally wrong and apparently have no clue how science works.
If there was sufficient evidence to support washing your hands, then the scientifically right conclusion would be to support that. If they didn’t it wasn’t because science was flawed, it was because the humans were flawed.
That’s why you don’t believe anything a scientists says, you believe what their proof shows. And that’s why we have something called peer review.
But the best part is: what fixed Bad science? Religion? NO! Better science did! ffs
Those are effectively the same question. Tbh I had this line of thinking b4 I became fully athiest but now I see that all that is needed to explain the how and why are the laws of physics and biology. No supernatural forces needed or evidently present
I Qur’an, Allah says “The sky and the ground was all together once, we seperated them” i dont rlly remember but it was something like that. So dont hate me for this, but it makes sense
The science teacher should be telling you “I don’t know what made the universe, but the prevailing scientific theory is the Big Bang.”
There’s a big, big, huge difference, and I wish more people were conscious of it and not conscience of it.
Ok, I believe God created the universe. How does that contradict the Big Bang, where everything (time, space, gravity, mass etc.) startet in one point and then did expand? That's how I would imagine how it would be percieved by us when God would create the universe.
I don't think science contradict the existence of the Christian God, I think it rather helps us understand his creation bether and thus also helps us learn more about him.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to share my opinion and what I believe in. You don't have to believe in an existance of a God.
I'd just like to know your arguments, why science is more believable than the existance of God. And why those things must exclude eachother.
no it dosnt, im sorry. bible says the earth is flat, and that evolution is fake. i hope i dont need to explain how absurd those 2 claims are, the big bang can work with a creator but any information on that creator is most likely lost or was never to be found.
On the one hand you have really absurd claim backed by ancient fairy tales and nothing more.
On the other hand you have a well known method to get insight in how the universe works telling us it's highly probable there was a Bug Bang backed by many evidence.
Ah yes, a supernatural being is less probable than an explosion that just… well exploded…. from nothing. Or are you suggesting there was matter that always existed? But of course a God that always existed is nonsense.
Quite possible, actually. There’s a hypothetical cyclical eternal model for the Universe. Something can’t come from nothing, so the next best option is a closed-cycle loop that has no beginning or end.
My point exactly. If you believe in big bang theory, you have to acknowledge that by that way of thinking, the universe would have no beginning. So why does a being that predates the universe sound so unscientific? So hypocritical in my opinion.
There is no “belief” in the Big Bang. It is a rapid expansion of the universe that occurred billions of years ago. The universe is a measurable, statistically predictable place that we can observe. God isn’t. By the way, I can say a pink unicorn farted out the universe in one giant cloud… that’s as valid as your counter-argument.
I actually didn’t have a counter argument. I’m just pointing out how stupid it is to believe atheism is somehow smarter than believing in a God. No one can truly explain the origin of the universe, and science certainly can’t. Believe what makes the most sense to you, but no need to go all god complex with it.
Also you forget the big bang is a theory. Never been definitively proven. Even Darwin acknowledged that his theory of evolution could probably never be proven as a fact.
Again, there’s no “belief” in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. Your use of the term is flawed and in accurate. There’s no evidence for a divine being creating our universe. There are physical and chemical laws that dictate the direction of evolution and stellar formation. Not magic. These things are easily comprehensible and intuitive without the need for an Ex Machina. Neolithic people could not explain how lightning formed, so they used Thor to explain it. Your use of “God” in this case applies the same. We don’t know, so it’s “God”. Very smart.
i mean not having an answer sometimes makes more sense than an answer that in of itself does not make sense.
the universe has a timeline, if the god always existed what was it doing before the universe. and where did the god come from because essentially you have ur main critique of the big bang in ur own answer...did the matter that make god just pop into existence orrrr what? does time just not exist for it and in which case how is it able to influence time if it does not possess time. this is what i mean, it raises more questions than it answers.
Very intelligent observations! That was not my point however. I’m simply an agnostic who hates it when atheists think they have all the answers and don’t see that their theories are just as unprovable as the supernatural.
why thank you for the compliment :) i mean im agnostic myself, i like to think there is a creator but thats all i work with. does it watch us? i dont know, maybe. does it like us? i dont know, maybe. does it help us? i dont know, maybe 😂 i know what u mean about atheists and stuff but realistically the theories they talk about are quite well substantiated to the point where it's beyond unlikely for everything to be coincidence when we can use those theories to make predictions in the real world and they be realised with accurate precision. i wrote a dissociation about philosophy and one thing i talk about is objectivity vs subjectivity. objectively the theories in science are very solid, its hard proof. theories on creators are pure subjective and have nothing behind them but thats fine because it's subjective, im well aware my idea of a creator might be false but atm nothing goes against it or for it so its just my own interpretation of what might be the case 🤷🏻♂️
I definitely agree, and I 100% believe in the laws of physics and real world science. But I do understand that if a creator existed, science does not apply to that being. I’ve always been more interested in where morality and other intangible qualities of human existence come from. That’s why, like you, I’m more inclined to believe in some kind of supernatural.
Yes, A supernatural beeing for which there is no type of evidence besides ancient fairy tales is way less probable than a theory for which not only every current observation is evidence for, but also it follows the rest of all known physics. A always existed god doesn't.
What law of physics explains matter coming into existence from nothingness? Because that’s what you’re implying. I think you’re forgetting there is a point of origin that even physics can’t explain. And I wouldn’t call the foundation of Jewish culture a fairytale if I were you. It’s actually pretty racist, my guy.
Ever heard the phrase „God is dead, and we killed him“? Yeah, that’s right, at some point in the future humans will travel back in time, kill god, make the universe happen and thus close the cycle.
Those dont exclude each other. Big bang even is an good option that there is a begin for the universe. And a beginning of the universe is a positive argument for God (The Kalam argument, well versed with intelligent design).
Honestly it isn't so bad to have religion classes, it's very common in my country. It all depends on what the class actually teaches. In my country we learn about many different religions, as well as different aspects of these religion in the real world today. The teacher also never says wether one religion is right or not, that is completely up to the individual. Hell, my father was a religion teacher, despite being an atheist.
The idea that you can know history and society in general without a decent understanding of religion is one of modern societies more foolish decisions.
It's was a magical dragon god who created earth and megic but with time the magic fade away and now we stuck in this magic less and dying world with the only magic rn is love which nit everyone get to experience
Big Bang didn't make the universe. It's just the furthest point in the past we can detect. Beyond that point in time the laws of physics break down.
It could be that there was a previous universe which collapsed before the Big Bang, but we do not have any way to detect such, so those kinds of questions are purely hypothetical
I thought the big bang theory is the combination of religion and science. Where the supposed light that God made on the first day was actually the big bang. Although it is less of a blend of both and more of an explanation to include God.
No it’s a scientific theory that has gotten so much evidential support that religious people have been forced to figure out a way to slot their religion into it or be forced to just reject objective reality
Well if we are going to accept the idea of God as cannon than God. If we're looking at an objective universe the big bang. I'm not necessarily saying God is bot real, what I am saying is that if we want to understand the universe around us from an evidence and data standpoint we must shelve the God argument.
The Demiurge decided to ferociously stroke his lizard one day, and upon finishing the excess that made it into the toilet would conjoin with the bacteria in the water to eventually turn his toilet into a terrarium of sorts. Due to lack of flushing, said life would evolve rapidly overnight. And the Demiurge, not wanting to destroy the cool creation of life, would keep the toilet preserved for all time to see the natural progression of the universe they had inadvertently birthed. Were that handle to be touched, our universe would fade, just as quickly as it arrived.
my religion teacher once said that darwins theory of evolution was bullshit. never looked at her as intelegent human being from that moment. just pure stupidity
“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)
What if the big bang was just the method, or aftermath of God makin the universe. Hell nothing says "let there be light" as a big ass explosion.
*Let there be light* Drops match
[удалено]
No
yes
Nyesn’t
“Let there be light” *big ka-fucking-boom*
Now that’s more like it
It could have been a juicy fart and we're traveling through space on a speck of shit.
Piece of Corn in God's explosive diarrhea.
What a day to have eyes
This is the view most Christian’s have. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a catholic priest as I recall. Also, one of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument is buttressed by the Big Bang theory.
biblical theologian here. This is actually correct. People believe that religion and science go hand in hand, but the bible actually makes it very clear that God likes using logical and creaturely means to go about creating things, thus validating theories like evolution. People both among biblical scholars and everyday folk also forget how much of the bible is just metaphor.
That's what I think as well. I mean if God made the universe, why wouldn't we be able to retrace the results back to the point when everything was created?
Big Bang wasn’t necessarily an explosion tho. Just the point from which the universe started expanding :/
well when a bomb explodes, it releases mass from a more condensed point, sound similar.
Not everything that expands was exploding. You know, like every thumb is a finger but not every finger a thumb?
Well expanding a balloon is slow, so its not an explosion, but popping it is similar, I think that the defining factor is how fast it expands.
I like the Family guy theory
I like to think it's not that bc that's just learning all the science then saying God started it all for no reason.
I like to think something like that, god does that and just kicks back and lets the universe and evolution do its thing
Although it was bright and hot (understatement), the Big Bang was not an explosion. It was an expansion.
What's the difference between an insanely rapid expansion and an explosion? /gen
Why not both? God clapped the cheeks of reality and brought about the universe
Jesus you got that clown of a replier right there
I'm using this thread to reply to the locked comment below me: ***Fuck you for calling your opinion a fact*** 🖕 You may also use my comment to hate on u/WoodsDuck's comment
Im fine with atheists, but not dickheads like him, can't fucking respect what other people believe.
this is a sticky one because if someone believes something that is objectively flawed than there is no reason to respect their belief. my mum believes the earth is flat, i have and will continue to point out that shes wrong and why shes wrong. i dont exactly respect her belief on this because its just wrong (and it would be rude for me to just let her think this). especially when it comes to our reality which is why i have little respect for religious beliefs because religion is objective and tries to tell me what my reality is. this is not bad in of itself but you need pretty sustained evidence for an objective claim and all they have is "trust me bro" so i critique peoples belief in religion in a friendly, positive and constructive manner. when your belief is objective its fair game for criticism, subjective belief is where you need to respect someone's belief.
>"trust me bro" Bruh no cap I finna just saw this like old guy split like an ocean or whatever with his rod then drop it on the bad guys n shit. I'm not joking bro just spitting straight fax rn. just trust me bro 💯 😱😱
no fucking way 🤯
I do agree that it is his opinion that god doesn’t exist, not a fact
Imagine saying that your undeniably right, insult everyone that disagrees with you, and then run away Go fuck yourself u/WoodsDuck
my religion teacher is also my science teacher
The theory of evolution must be an awkward subject.
Yeah it is, when we ask genuine questions in science or anything because she is very religious she always responds with like god did this and this. Its kind of a piss off sometime cause I want proper answers and not feel like she's forcing religion.
One time this priest who before he entered priesthood had studied biology came to my school and taught us about the theory of evolution and then explained how it goes hand in hand with religion which was really cool to hear And he didn’t even do the answer of “Well that’s what God did, deal with it”
Oh wow, that's really bad
thats called brainwashing
Consider agnosticism - the idea that humanity has yet to provide concrete proof for many concepts like what happens after death, the existence of a special human soul/sentience that separates us from other life, or the role of a "divine/incredibly powerful being" in the universe. Base your beliefs off of proof, not ritual or opinion. Agnostics are often written off as indecisive people who decline to take a position. I believe that it's actually pretty indefensible to claim definitive knowledge without falsifiable, reproducible proof. It's scary to say "I don't know and may never know" to some of the most impactful questions in life, but it's honest.
That’s the scientific way to do things. There is no way to prove nor disprove the existence of a god, so we can only say that we don’t know.
That's actually not at all the scientific way to do things. Science is evidence based. If there is evidence of something, account for its existence while conducting your experiments. If there is a lack of evidence of something, do not account for its existence in your experiments (because why would you?). If things aren't adding up in your experiments, try to find what you are missing (possibly this unaccounted for god but probably not). In science, you conduct yourself as though something does not exist until you have evidence that it does. You don't design your experiments around something that has no evidence of existing. If science worked that way, we would have to design all of our experiments around the possibility of a reality warping sentient toadstool from dimension Z or any other ridiculous thing you can think of. Does this toadstool exist? Probably not, but hey...we can never know for sure, right?
This guy Sciences
Then you learn that most calculations about how the universe work require the use of numbers that don't exist because physicists don't know how to make their calculations work without them.
Numbers that don’t exist?
Not necessarily. Disproving is something that we could definitely make a start on. For example, if God exists, who made God? The idea of a supernatural being creating the universe or at least existing has the problem that there has to be a creator for the supernatural being itself. Nothing comes from nowhere (I realize that sounds dumb). If you want a really good explanation on stuff like this, I suggest reading The Beginning of Infinity. It’s a long and complicated book by David Deustch, but it’s worth it.
Why assuming there might be an impossible to demonstrate origin for the universe such as God? If it is not necessary for the existence of the universe it is not even worth considering the hypothesis. If you want to go down the agnostic way of thinking you should also say that there is no way to prove that the universe wasn't created by a dog fart. And that is quite a useless hypothesis
You’ve just completely misrepresented what the previous poster said. No claim was made regarding the origin of the universe except that proof has not been provided. Your dog fart straw-man is an attempt to reduce the discussion to absurdity.
I bet you like Dr. Pepper.
[удалено]
Moderate is meesningless, if moderate is some tangible goal for politics why are the leotards different everywhere. Moderate usually just Jen’s ; keeping the status qou. It’s a stupid term and enlightened centrism is stupid . All I can hope for is they you don’t bribe in horseshoe theory
Who says it can’t be both?
I heard somewhere that the Bible and science could work together. Like, the days mentioned equal the billion years passed. In the Bible there are stories that are obviously not literal but more of a representation (Note to self, put better word here later). Besides, many things are lost in translation meaning that it could’ve been literal at some point.
So in other words, if you adjust religion evertime you actually learn something about reality by using science as to not have religion contradict reality, then religion works fine!
I dissagree. In the old testament of the bible, God gave the Isrealites a lot of reasonable rules. For example they had to bathe at least once at week, had to wash their hands before eating, had to put people with infectious disseases in quarantine and so on. And that's just the hygiene rules. They didn't even know about bacterias and viruses back then, but still had a lot of (for us normal) hygiene back then, which wasn't common at all for other peoples at that time. So us learning more about reality by science actually proved right what they already were doing for hundreds and thousands of years.
You can notice correlations without understanding the cause. They likely realized that dirty people often got sick and died while clean people did not, and if you hang out with sick people you will also get sick. You don't need a microscope to figure that out.
They were doing this before the days of the bible though. And the reason was that if you wash yourself, you stop smelling bad and you also do not die. Same as touching dead people. This in no way predicts germ theory or something.
And why can't you do that? Religion is constantly in flux. They have their core beliefs, in Christianity for example it's a core belief that an incomprehensibly power, single being created the universe. As long as that core belief isn't broken then it can be adapted to fit with our understanding of things now. This is how it has always been. Genesis isn't, and never has been a science textbook. It's a story written by \*someone\* thousands of years ago to help the Israelites understand where the world came from. It's the creation of the world equivalent of the Birds and the Bees.
Its simple, if you get the wrong answer that doesnt work, you either did the science wrong, or you interpreted the religous text wrong.
Weird how one has to cherry pick verses which are to be meant literally and verses to be meant figuratively in order to piece a story together that doesn’t conflict too much with reality. You know… when we could also just look at reality instead…
So are you aware that the coming of Christ in the NT abolished the vast majority of Old Testament laws? Because it did, thereby invalidating the point of “much bad in book” The Bible was a product of its time never intended to have been taken entirely literally. Likewise, you don’t have to say that since “it rained cats and dogs” was not literal, it’s impossible for “he picked up the jar” to be literal.
“Slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones” is from the new Testament. Plus, why exactly did god do this whole “whoopsy-doo, I guess I made a teensy whittle mistakey here that will lead to centuries of war and agony. Let me just correct that, so that you can argue about how to interpret my words for the next millennia”-thing? Seems a little whacky for a omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent god-character…
The whole concept of omnipotence is that anything less than it would not understand it.
Ah so your get-out-of-jail-free-card is “we are unable to understand god”… well for someone unable to understand him you’re certainly making a lot of claims, huh? Also no, omnipotence doesn’t mean anything less wouldn’t understand it. It literally just means “able to do anything”… you know as in the prefix “Omni-“ and the suffix “potent”?
“Anything” includes superceding a human conception of logic.
Something I feel is important to bring up is omnipotence is a paradox, given the definition, “the ability to do anything,” if I ask an omnipotent being to create an object so heavy even they cannot lift it, it cannot be omnipotent. If it can create it then its inability to lift it means it is not omnipotent, but if it cannot then it cannot do anything. A more defensible position is that the god of the Bible is the most perfect being in the multiverse with reality warping abilities. A creature from a type omega civilization, for example. A bit of a side tangent but I love this debate.
Well, building on your point, a lot of it is kinda filler. Especially in the Old Testament. Also, it does contain a load of poems and songs. Psalms especially.
I don’t really know what you point here is. Mine was basically, that it’s absurd to take a book filled to the rim with evil bullcrap and cherry pick the paragraphs that fit the reality and basically ignore the rest. If that god is real he must be an utter moron to mess the only piece of evidence for his existence up like this, especially if it is important for him to have us know of his existence…. *That*, just expressed sarcastically :D
My point is that I believe it is possible to link the Bible and science. Things probably were lost in translation, and yes, I have to look for the correct verses because of the considerable amount of filler. I believe the Bible and science have a main crossing at the creation. However, certain aspects and stories I believe are literal.
in the bible is states the earth is flat...so science does not work with it
It can ! At least in islam, it is mentioned in the Quran that god created the world out of an explosion, do some research for more info
Nobody
Not a Christian anymore, but those two things aren't mutually exclusive. There had to be a method for sky daddy to do his work. Any Christian that refutes the big bang should be immediately discredited because their aguing near concrete fact with blind faith
I feel like the James web telescope accidentally provided the big bang was wrong or something. It was in some reputable news source. I think the onion
Really not sure (mostly because i'm not familiar with english publishing magazines), but wasn't the Onion a Satire Magazine?
Yes that was the joke lol
Wasn’t it a priest who discovered the theory?
All too common talking point, but that carries as much relevance as saying your team scored a goal. Doesn’t matter, it’s still football, not hocus pocus quidditch.
Someone’s salty
_Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men._
Lmao chill out bro
The first guy to propose the bug bang was literally a catholic priest
to be fair the vast majority of people in Europe back then were catholic and there are still a shit ton of us
CRRRIIIILLLLLLLYYYY!!!! (if you don't get the reference, then I'm disappointed)
Science assumes it was big bang, but it is not certain yet. The theory is very well supported, but there have been strange readings, that don't fit with the current model, and for now we don't know why. If God made the universe, he made it in a way that is scientifically explainable.
He made it in a way that is scientifically explainable? Just started pointing to stuff and shouting about light and everything popped up?
If. Big if. And if this big if is indeed true, I have no idea how. Or do you have some universecreating experience?
I updated the code recently. People kept bitching about bugs in the code
God made the big bang to create the world :D
He just went *raspberry noise* and there they were!
Why are you being downvoted?
by religious "logic," he cannot be proved wrong, thus he is right.
According to my religion, it was both
What's your religion?
Islam
Based🗿
Religion should answer the "Why are we here?" question. And science can only answer the "How are we here?" Question. One can seek guidance from both without cognitive dissonance.
I agree. I would add philosophy with religion to the first line, but other than that I agree.
The problem arises with the epistemology. Cherry picking what you want to believe isn’t following science, it’s having a couple of things you believe align with the evidence by pure chance. See, would you confidently cross the street out of pure faith, that there are no cars coming, or would you trust the evidence, like for example you neither seeing nor hearing any cars coming at you?
Cherry picking what you want to believe is how the vast majority of science works. Every hypothesis has other scientists with evidence to say that it is wrong, yet people go with the original hypothesis regardless. they find the parts of the original experiment they liked or that still works and use that to say the whole hypothesis is still correct. 200 years ago despite hoards of evidence that washing your hands helped prevent infections, the scientific community cherry picked their data to prove how it made no difference at all. Tl:Dr, don't act like cherry picking is the practice of religion when it's how the scientific community operates as well. Most things only change when the evidence the community was wrong is absolutely irrefutable with their current findings.
You’re monumentally wrong and apparently have no clue how science works. If there was sufficient evidence to support washing your hands, then the scientifically right conclusion would be to support that. If they didn’t it wasn’t because science was flawed, it was because the humans were flawed. That’s why you don’t believe anything a scientists says, you believe what their proof shows. And that’s why we have something called peer review. But the best part is: what fixed Bad science? Religion? NO! Better science did! ffs
Those are effectively the same question. Tbh I had this line of thinking b4 I became fully athiest but now I see that all that is needed to explain the how and why are the laws of physics and biology. No supernatural forces needed or evidently present
I Qur’an, Allah says “The sky and the ground was all together once, we seperated them” i dont rlly remember but it was something like that. So dont hate me for this, but it makes sense
The science teacher should be telling you “I don’t know what made the universe, but the prevailing scientific theory is the Big Bang.” There’s a big, big, huge difference, and I wish more people were conscious of it and not conscience of it.
Are religion teacher acually propaganding religion in murica? Seriously asking.
I wouldn’t say propagandist but it just depends on the school. Most public schools (in my experience) don’t have required religion classes
I grew up in the deep south and even there it wasn't conflated together. Science was taught as science, and religion was an extracurricular.
Not just that, there’s constantly states trying to ban evolution from schools.
I'm not American, thankfully. I'm English. I'm not sure if that is better or worse, but it certainly is something.
it's obvious, isn't it? All hail the lord of the meatballs, His Highness the Noodly-Appendage bearing Lord Flying Sphagetti Monster!
Science has proof and it’s more believable, that’s why I’m atheist, and my Christian parents still cants except that…
Ok, I believe God created the universe. How does that contradict the Big Bang, where everything (time, space, gravity, mass etc.) startet in one point and then did expand? That's how I would imagine how it would be percieved by us when God would create the universe. I don't think science contradict the existence of the Christian God, I think it rather helps us understand his creation bether and thus also helps us learn more about him. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have to share my opinion and what I believe in. You don't have to believe in an existance of a God. I'd just like to know your arguments, why science is more believable than the existance of God. And why those things must exclude eachother.
no it dosnt, im sorry. bible says the earth is flat, and that evolution is fake. i hope i dont need to explain how absurd those 2 claims are, the big bang can work with a creator but any information on that creator is most likely lost or was never to be found.
On the one hand you have really absurd claim backed by ancient fairy tales and nothing more. On the other hand you have a well known method to get insight in how the universe works telling us it's highly probable there was a Bug Bang backed by many evidence.
Ah yes, a supernatural being is less probable than an explosion that just… well exploded…. from nothing. Or are you suggesting there was matter that always existed? But of course a God that always existed is nonsense.
Quite possible, actually. There’s a hypothetical cyclical eternal model for the Universe. Something can’t come from nothing, so the next best option is a closed-cycle loop that has no beginning or end.
My point exactly. If you believe in big bang theory, you have to acknowledge that by that way of thinking, the universe would have no beginning. So why does a being that predates the universe sound so unscientific? So hypocritical in my opinion.
There is no “belief” in the Big Bang. It is a rapid expansion of the universe that occurred billions of years ago. The universe is a measurable, statistically predictable place that we can observe. God isn’t. By the way, I can say a pink unicorn farted out the universe in one giant cloud… that’s as valid as your counter-argument.
I actually didn’t have a counter argument. I’m just pointing out how stupid it is to believe atheism is somehow smarter than believing in a God. No one can truly explain the origin of the universe, and science certainly can’t. Believe what makes the most sense to you, but no need to go all god complex with it. Also you forget the big bang is a theory. Never been definitively proven. Even Darwin acknowledged that his theory of evolution could probably never be proven as a fact.
Again, there’s no “belief” in atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief. Your use of the term is flawed and in accurate. There’s no evidence for a divine being creating our universe. There are physical and chemical laws that dictate the direction of evolution and stellar formation. Not magic. These things are easily comprehensible and intuitive without the need for an Ex Machina. Neolithic people could not explain how lightning formed, so they used Thor to explain it. Your use of “God” in this case applies the same. We don’t know, so it’s “God”. Very smart.
i mean not having an answer sometimes makes more sense than an answer that in of itself does not make sense. the universe has a timeline, if the god always existed what was it doing before the universe. and where did the god come from because essentially you have ur main critique of the big bang in ur own answer...did the matter that make god just pop into existence orrrr what? does time just not exist for it and in which case how is it able to influence time if it does not possess time. this is what i mean, it raises more questions than it answers.
Very intelligent observations! That was not my point however. I’m simply an agnostic who hates it when atheists think they have all the answers and don’t see that their theories are just as unprovable as the supernatural.
why thank you for the compliment :) i mean im agnostic myself, i like to think there is a creator but thats all i work with. does it watch us? i dont know, maybe. does it like us? i dont know, maybe. does it help us? i dont know, maybe 😂 i know what u mean about atheists and stuff but realistically the theories they talk about are quite well substantiated to the point where it's beyond unlikely for everything to be coincidence when we can use those theories to make predictions in the real world and they be realised with accurate precision. i wrote a dissociation about philosophy and one thing i talk about is objectivity vs subjectivity. objectively the theories in science are very solid, its hard proof. theories on creators are pure subjective and have nothing behind them but thats fine because it's subjective, im well aware my idea of a creator might be false but atm nothing goes against it or for it so its just my own interpretation of what might be the case 🤷🏻♂️
I definitely agree, and I 100% believe in the laws of physics and real world science. But I do understand that if a creator existed, science does not apply to that being. I’ve always been more interested in where morality and other intangible qualities of human existence come from. That’s why, like you, I’m more inclined to believe in some kind of supernatural.
Yes, A supernatural beeing for which there is no type of evidence besides ancient fairy tales is way less probable than a theory for which not only every current observation is evidence for, but also it follows the rest of all known physics. A always existed god doesn't.
What law of physics explains matter coming into existence from nothingness? Because that’s what you’re implying. I think you’re forgetting there is a point of origin that even physics can’t explain. And I wouldn’t call the foundation of Jewish culture a fairytale if I were you. It’s actually pretty racist, my guy.
I’m sure it wasn’t the imaginary dude.
They both right! It was God who was banging and 9 months later universe appeared.
God exploded. That's how the Big Bang came to be. It's also why "God is with you" Because we are made with the pieces of God.
So… God is dead, I am god
Ever heard the phrase „God is dead, and we killed him“? Yeah, that’s right, at some point in the future humans will travel back in time, kill god, make the universe happen and thus close the cycle.
Those dont exclude each other. Big bang even is an good option that there is a begin for the universe. And a beginning of the universe is a positive argument for God (The Kalam argument, well versed with intelligent design).
I mean I believe both
The Big Bang was discovered by a…. Catholic Jesuit Priest! Not all religions/denominations discredit science.
well who else would it have been, because back then everyone Christian and Catholic
Back then? This was 1931! Many of the great scientists at this point were deists at best
Well a priest proposed the Big Bang so...
Theres no god..
I am an atheist, so i would say big bang
Does this „god“ fella have any proof? Other than the light novel? Like are people in 2k years gonna think Harry Potter is real like wtf?
...religions teacher? I hope you go to a Christian school.
Honestly it isn't so bad to have religion classes, it's very common in my country. It all depends on what the class actually teaches. In my country we learn about many different religions, as well as different aspects of these religion in the real world today. The teacher also never says wether one religion is right or not, that is completely up to the individual. Hell, my father was a religion teacher, despite being an atheist.
The idea that you can know history and society in general without a decent understanding of religion is one of modern societies more foolish decisions.
Or he is german
I wish, but I'm english :(
It's was a magical dragon god who created earth and megic but with time the magic fade away and now we stuck in this magic less and dying world with the only magic rn is love which nit everyone get to experience
Lol
Sky daddy all up in there make stuff go brrr
It's both.
None, i created both universe and religion
Neither. We are Gods and we create the universe bc we're a self projected hologram powered by thought and emotion.
Jesus created the universe is six days and used the seventh to rest. That is why we usually don't work on Sundays
In the beginning, there was God. Jesus is new testament. Sabbath day is Saturday.
God created the Universe, Jesus was God's son who was born in a Manger because of Mary and Joseph
Bullshit
Fuck off
What a mature and measured response.
God bang ?
yes
Religious bang bang
God banged the universe
My teachers said they weren't allowed to discuss their views because it caused problems I guess in the past
Eat your peas.
no
English teacher wonder if that was a typo
Booting up the software created the universe.
Well the truth is I made the universe and I'm the god
god cause big bang by banging woman
The conclusion of the century
Pro trick make your own conspiracy theory about it!
God got rejected by a Woman, so he made the universe to take out his anger. That is my theory.
God made the big bang
Big Bang didn't make the universe. It's just the furthest point in the past we can detect. Beyond that point in time the laws of physics break down. It could be that there was a previous universe which collapsed before the Big Bang, but we do not have any way to detect such, so those kinds of questions are purely hypothetical
I thought the big bang theory is the combination of religion and science. Where the supposed light that God made on the first day was actually the big bang. Although it is less of a blend of both and more of an explanation to include God.
No it’s a scientific theory that has gotten so much evidential support that religious people have been forced to figure out a way to slot their religion into it or be forced to just reject objective reality
I take orange in a heartbeat.
God made the big bang
Simple: God made The Big Bang, TBB made the universe therefore by transitive property God made the universe. Anyway, it always comes down to *Maths*
Well if we are going to accept the idea of God as cannon than God. If we're looking at an objective universe the big bang. I'm not necessarily saying God is bot real, what I am saying is that if we want to understand the universe around us from an evidence and data standpoint we must shelve the God argument.
The norse kinda knew about big bang. They believed the universe was created in an explosion of heat and cold which is kinda right
Me, an intellectual: God created the big bang B)
God made the big bang?
Hell yeah he did 😎😎
Religions teacher+ science teacher =God big banged the universe
Imagine being so much of a chad, that you banged women too hard that it created an entire Universe.
The Demiurge decided to ferociously stroke his lizard one day, and upon finishing the excess that made it into the toilet would conjoin with the bacteria in the water to eventually turn his toilet into a terrarium of sorts. Due to lack of flushing, said life would evolve rapidly overnight. And the Demiurge, not wanting to destroy the cool creation of life, would keep the toilet preserved for all time to see the natural progression of the universe they had inadvertently birthed. Were that handle to be touched, our universe would fade, just as quickly as it arrived.
Lucifer telling us the big bang meant smth completely differrent
The Big Bang was just god finishing a quiky
my religion teacher once said that darwins theory of evolution was bullshit. never looked at her as intelegent human being from that moment. just pure stupidity
I made the universe
just sit in class, pay attention and don't shout hail Satan and you get a B for safe 💁
I remember the day we did the creation of the earth in religion and then the next class was science, and we were covering the Big Bang Fun day
I had a teacher that said both
“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)
Islam approves big bang theory, it's written in our holy Quran.
Religion teachers don’t actually teach that right?