# Help With Understanding the Big Bang Theory?



## he beholds (May 7, 2011)

I have just come to understand that the Big Bang Theory is not a causal theory but an effect theory. In other words, the BBT is not proposing _how_ the universe was created, but simply that there was once nothing and then something happened [We would call this God creating the universe] that made time and space begin. 

I had always understood the BBT to be the event that _happened_ to cause the universe to exist (a bang), but it is not a description of that. It is asserting that there was once no matter, no energy, and out of nothing came the world. It is a theory that suggests that the world has not always existed, it is not infinite. That's why some scientists don't like it. They want to believe that the universe was once smaller and has now expanded, but it was always something. But really the BBT says that it was once nothing, something caused it, and then it expanded. 

Can anyone help me understand this more?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 8, 2011)

I think you understand it pretty well. My former Pastor (who is an accomplished amateur astonomer) summarized the Big Bang Theory this way: "In the Beginning there was nothing, and then it blew up."

The reason for this actually points to the honesty and integrity of many scientists. They understand that they deal with empirical things; with observations and measurements. They also know that their scope of investigation means that they have nothing to say about unobservable things. This leads them to be able to speak of causes only in the realm of the observable, but not anywhere else.

The short story behind it all is that observations of the universe lead many scientists to believe that the universe had a beginning. Things like background radiation and observations that farther stars seem to be moving away from us faster than nearer stars force them to think that the universe is ever expanding. If it is ever expanding, it had to have a beginning. The honest scientist says no more than that because he has cannot observe anything that didn't exist before a beginning.

The problem is that others reject the idea that the universe had a beginning because they extend their belief beyond the scope of observation: They believe fundamentally that matter does not just come into being because they have never seen such a thing and refuse the implications of it. So they will work hard to try to come up with an explanation for why the universe seems to be ever expanding--but really isn't. Ironically, they have no problem believing in a universe that never had a beginning, but still accept that the present universe will have an end. That seems to me to require greater blind faith than belief in a Creator.


----------



## steadfast7 (May 8, 2011)

The BBT is merely the explanation for our present universe. Cosmologists and philosophers have many theories going around about what may have happened before that, ie. oscillating universes, multiple universes, string theory, etc. The idea that the universe began to exist is becoming a kind "common ground" between materialists and theists, but it's obvious that it's getting nowhere but only backs up the discussion one step to what gave rise to our most recent big bang. Getting atheists to believe comes to one thing: prayer!


----------



## Marrow Man (May 8, 2011)

It's a situation comedy about a group of nerds attending college and who have trouble relating to females (and the rest of society for that matter).


----------



## he beholds (May 8, 2011)

So why do Christians hate the Big Bang? Why do we typically consider it unable to be supported by Scripture? For me, I lumped it with evolution and thought that it was talking about a bang CAUSING the earth to be created, but where would I have gotten that idea, if that isn't what it's attempting to explain?


----------



## Skyler (May 8, 2011)

Generally it's the timescale between the "bang" and today that gets Christians hung up. Most Big Bang cosmologies assume a time frame of billions of years between then and now.


----------



## he beholds (May 8, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Generally it's the timescale between the "bang" and today that gets Christians hung up. Most Big Bang cosmologies assume a time frame of billions of years between then and now.


 
So could the "bang" have happened billions of years before the six days of the creation of earth? I wouldn't be surprised if BBT creationists are Old Earth, but could that first event have been "In the Beginning, heavens and earth, _without form_. Fast Fwd, The first day of the creation of the heavens and earth more specifically as we know it." ? So there were billions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3, but since 1:3 it's just been the 6,000 years (or whatever) that most Xians are comfortable with? 

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.


----------



## cih1355 (May 8, 2011)

he beholds said:


> I have just come to understand that the Big Bang Theory is not a causal theory but an effect theory. In other words, the BBT is not proposing _how_ the universe was created, but simply that there was once nothing and then something happened [We would call this God creating the universe] that made time and space begin.
> 
> I had always understood the BBT to be the event that _happened_ to cause the universe to exist (a bang), but it is not a description of that. It is asserting that there was once no matter, no energy, and out of nothing came the world. It is a theory that suggests that the world has not always existed, it is not infinite. That's why some scientists don't like it. They want to believe that the universe was once smaller and has now expanded, but it was always something. But really the BBT says that it was once nothing, something caused it, and then it expanded.
> 
> Can anyone help me understand this more?


 
The Big Bang Theory says that there was a situation where there was nothing, not even space and time existed. Then, vacuum fluctuations created a singularity that became hot and dense. This singularity exploded and the universe began to exist and started to expand. The Big Bang Theory is part of a secular theory of origins that says that the stars including our sun existed before the earth came into existence. This is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. The stars were created on the fourth day of creation, but the earth was created on the first day of creation. 

Old earth creationists say that when this theory was originally invented many non-Christians did not like this theory because it implied that the universe began to exist and that God must exist.


----------



## Skyler (May 8, 2011)

That would be similar to the gap theory, I think.


----------



## JM (May 8, 2011)

Wolowitz is my favorite.


----------



## he beholds (May 8, 2011)

cih1355 said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> > I have just come to understand that the Big Bang Theory is not a causal theory but an effect theory. In other words, the BBT is not proposing _how_ the universe was created, but simply that there was once nothing and then something happened [We would call this God creating the universe] that made time and space begin.
> ...


 
From what I can tell, there is no understanding, besides the biblical one, as to what caused the first event. I don't think scientists would even say that they've proved that it was vacuum fluctuations or anything (and if some do say that, please share with us. They are obviously lying!). I'm sure they'd like to be able to prove that, but I think the reason Einstein and others found the BBT troubling was because they still couldn't say what caused the BB, since there was previously nothing.


----------



## steadfast7 (May 8, 2011)

One must understand science's difficulty in naming a supernatural or immaterial being as the cause of the BB - that's not within it's sphere. So while it is secular, science as a discipline is simply silent on the question of metaphysics. I personally think one can believe in the BB and also creationism (even old earth creationism), and still be within the bounds of Scripture and the confessions.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

I don't believe in the big bang. I believe God created the universe and ordered it the way he wanted it. Looking at the distance between objects doesn't communicate age. it communicates distance. God created a big universe and put it into motion.


----------



## he beholds (May 9, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> I don't believe in the big bang. I believe God created the universe and ordered it the way he wanted it. Looking at the distance between objects doesn't communicate age. it communicates distance. God created a big universe and put it into motion.


 
What don't you believe about the Big Bang? Just the time part? I don't think the BBT posits anything else, really, except that before the first event was nothing. 
Again, I have seriously just started studying this so I don't understand everything, but from what I am learning, the BBT does not have anything to say about who/what created the universe. That remains to be determined, according to the secular scientists. Though, it was God, according to the Bible! As far as I can tell, it wasn't some bang that _created_ the universe, it is just the name that scientists have given to call that first event. So I think that part is certainly in line with Scripture: Once there was nothing, (as opposed to earlier materialists who said the world and matter are infinite), and then something caused it into existence. (We know it is God!) I can see the problem remaining if Gen 1 is meant to be a literal account. But I would like to understand if Gen 1 could be a literal account and still match up w/BBT.

Does the language of Scripture allow that "_1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters._" was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY long ago, long before God said, "Let there be light"? This without form and voidness, could it have been established long before the six days of creation? Does the beginning of the without form and void heaven and earth have to have been created the same day as Day one in the Creation narrative? Because if Scripture allows it (and if we could all determine that for sure Gen 1 is a literal account!) I could see that being possible. The without form and voidness of a heaven and earth need not have light, right? (Which was created Day One.) God _could_ have created this universe that was not yet molded long before he added light and land and plants and animals, etc.

Actually, it says, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The EARTH was without form. So maybe even the heavens could have had more substance to them???


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (May 9, 2011)

The problem with the Big Bang in my opinion is time but also the existence of life. The earth was formless could mean what happened after the big bang. According to my understanding the big bang caused particles to extend out into the universe. Over millions of years particles collect to form bigger particles and mass draws more particles to them (meteors ect). Now it focuses on evolution of not only life but of the world. It starts from a particle then forms into a world which then gathers water from meteors. Over billions of years you get bacteria which form into other things. I think the questions pose more questions than answers. I mean how does one explain the Cambrian Explosion or the existence of dinosaurs from a biblical perspective? 

I think the question we have to ask is are even the methods used to support the big bang reliable methods (Carbon Dating and the Speed of Light)? I am not scientist, but I have looked into the subject at some length and it caused more questions than answers.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (May 9, 2011)

he beholds said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in the big bang. I believe God created the universe and ordered it the way he wanted it. Looking at the distance between objects doesn't communicate age. it communicates distance. God created a big universe and put it into motion.
> ...


 
The big bang claims that there is a point of origin for eveything and that bang! things came to be. Then all of the galaxies and such began to move away from that point of origin in a sperical manner. This took billions of years etc...

Instead of that I think there was an ordered creation where God carefully created everything and put it where he wanted it based on biblical accounts.


----------



## MMasztal (May 9, 2011)

It's important how one defines the Big Bang. These days it has many definitions, hence many opinions as to its viability as a realistic creation account. As you're defining it in the previous post is fine, but the unbeleiver is still faced with "ex nihilo nihil fit" and how it fits into their metaphysics. I choose to believe what Scrpture says and that God gave us Scripture to edify us (although Rob Bell might disagree).


----------



## he beholds (May 9, 2011)

Hey Robert, I am definitely no scientist, so I don't even really understand all that you are talking about! But I think saying the BB caused something, even particles to extend, is incorrect? I guess at least that's the point that's sticking with me because that was the most radical thing that I learned. I had always thought that the BBT posited that a Big Bang CAUSED the world to come into being. But that's not what they've been saying, since there was previously nothing that could have been banged. They don't know (WE DO, if the BBT is even true) what CAUSED the BB. Something (God!) caused blah blah blah. (See, no science.) But, if it is as you say, the first effect was particles extending out to the universe, that was God causing it, or to atheists, that was an unknown thing causing it. Not the BB. 

And the BB, again, as far as I can tell, is not talking about life or dinosaurs or anything. BUT, the secularists who believe in the BBT probably also believe in Darwinism, so that would probably follow most scientific studies. But Christian scientists (man do we need more of those!) that believe the BBT have other answers than Darwin. 
Here's an article on the Cambrian Explosion (I don't even know what that is!) from the Discovery Institute that says Intelligent Design makes better sense of whatever evidence than Cambrian Explosion. 

P.S. Pirates are .500!!

---------- Post added at 10:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

CSC - Survival of the Fakest
Here's a good article showing fakes that have been passed off as evidence regarding Darwinism, since we mentioned dinosaurs, etc. These things are still in CURRENT science textbooks, yet they've either been since proven false OR since proven forgeries!!


----------

