I know, I know, this subject has been thrashed like a dead horse. Christians sum it up in a few words, 'in the beginning(time), God created the heavens(space) and the earth(matter), the trinity if you like.
Now is it just me or is this very similar to the Big Bang theory apart from the God part. Correct me if I'm wrong, at one point science believed that the universe was eternal then came along Hubble and made his analysis for the Big Bang theory that the universe at one point was a singular form some 10 billions degrees farienheit and only a few millimetres in diameter, Then of course the Big Bang, the beggining, energy, matter came into existence. Now you got to admit that the similarities are either a coincidence or science and religion are connected in some way?
I'm not going to get into 'the before the Big Bang question'.
So basically the question is, could it be possible that science and God(religion) be compatible with each other?
Thank you
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The singularity from which the Big Bang arose is only regarded as the earliest known event in the universe. It is still perfectly possible that the universe is eternal, unless of course you define the universe in such a way that means that the start of the Big Bang is the first event.
Science and religion are not compatible with each other. Religion assumes things to be true even when the facts contradict it.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6
.... and we have a "Universe".
... but what kind of Universe?
A mathematical one?
Whoever wrote this stuff wasn't a believer in a literal interpretation of what he wrote.
Sapporo
That's a fair enough point but it seems highly unlikely as Neil DeGrasse Tyson states, we know two 'facts' is that the universe had a beggining and the speed of light is not infinite. I hate to break it to you but the eternal universe theory is dead and buried. But is the universe infinite? We simply don't know and will the universe implode? Nor science or religion can answer that question (another similarity) we only can go on with the facts at hand.
Thank you
The universe having a beginning cannot be shown to be a fact unless you define it as something that exists as part of a wider whole.
The universe 'in it's current state' had a beginning. The Big Bang today is not thought of as the "creation" of our universe, but rather more like a phase transition from one state to another. How many states was the universe in before our version? We don't know, and that part may very well be eternal.
What do you mean by "the speed of light is not infinite"?
It just means the speed of light has a limit, 186.000 miles per second. Combine this with the beggining of the universe then we can work out the horizon of the universe etc
Genesis 1:
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
So, if we are using science and we just created the sun... how do we know it's the fourth day?
Kataklismic
I'm not a Christian by any means but like everyone on here I follow the evidence, you do know the Christian account of the 7 days of creation was never meant to be taken literally scientifically? that it stands for the progression of spirituality and serious Christians have known this since 100AD and a rudimentary attempt to combine primitive science and religion. To my understanding the fourth day 'in spiritual terms' is complete, thanks to the previous 3 and that your spirituality is ready to proceed as the stars, sun and the moon finally settle to the next stage of the beggining of animal life, fish, birds etc, on the 5th day and so on. The theory of evolution i some ways follow the same rules to an extent, light, water, plants, animals then humans, is this just another coincidence? Actually religious were the first scientist, irrelevant but I'd thought I'd throw it in lol.
According to Genesis, god created trees and plants before he created the Sun.
and
So... then... that would be a NO.
@Jason74
" you do know the Christian account of the 7 days of creation was never meant to be taken literally scientifically?"
Then why is Genesis very specific in how the passage of night splits time into 'days". And yes, it states "days". If it was meant not to be literal, where in the bible does it say that?
"you do know the Christian account of the 7 days of creation was never meant to be taken literally scientifically?"
no, of course I don't know that, neither do you, unless you can demonstrate evidence for your claim beyond the actual text being evidenced as absurdly wrong and thus requiring a desperate re-write to rationalise it.
"serious Christians have known this since"
More unevidenced BS, some christians have claimed this is more accurate. Demonstrate some evidence or they and you know nothing of the sort.
"rudimentary attempt to combine primitive science and religion. "
Is that the best an omniscient omnipotent deity can communicate? Risible nonsense...
"The theory of evolution i some ways follow the same rules"
Nonsense, nothing in evolution claims requires or evidences anything supernatural, or any deity, no talking snakes and no magic fruit.
"you do know the Christian account of the 7 days of creation was never meant to be taken literally scientifically?"
I'm totally down with this. This does mean that we can assume the whole Bible was never meant to be taken literally and that we can all move on from these superstitions, right? Or were you just picking and choosing which parts you think are more convenient to take literally?
"This does mean that we can assume the whole Bible was never meant to be taken literally and that we can all move on from these superstitions, right? Or were you just picking and choosing which parts you think are more convenient to take literally?"
It depends which theists is claiming it is objectively true.
Jason, you wrote, “you do know the Christian account of the 7 days of creation was never meant to be taken literally scientifically”
Um....how do you know this?
"Now is it just me or is this very similar to the Big Bang theory apart from the God part. "
No, the god part involves archaic superstition, and unevidenced magic with no explanatory powers whatsoever. They couldn't be more different. The BBT doesn't claim the universe was created, nor does it claim life and the earth emerged in just 6 days.
The biblical creation myth is risible nonsense.
"Now you got to admit that the similarities are either a coincidence or science and religion are connected in some way?"
Not at all, that's a false dichotomy fallacy, and there are no similarities anyway.
"So basically the question is, could it be possible that science and God(religion) be compatible with each other?"
Not until someone demonstrates some objective evidence for a deity, and a scientific explanation for creation that doesn't involve the risible stance of pointing at what science has discovered and going "godidit", so what have you got?
God
Fictional.
Sheldon
Evolution requires light, water, enzymes, cells etc, then
came plants, animals etc a vague attempt at evolution I know but are you telling me you can't see any of this in the so called six days of creation written a couple thousand years before Darwin?
Where does evolution evidence Magic apples, talking snakes, humans created instantly in their current form, or women created form a man's rib? It's asinine to pretend these are in any way comparable to scientific facts. As I just told you, pointing at scientific facts and claiming godidit is absurd. Species evolution is an objective fact. What objective evidence have you for any deity using supernatural magic? The idea evolution is explained in the biblical creation myth is just absurd sorry.
Your creation myth claims humans emerged after 6 days, in a process we know took over 14 billions years, you'd have to be insane or utterly delusional to think these are describing anything similar, let alone the same.
The Genesis myth claims the sun was created on the 4th day, just how is that rational given the location of the earth to the sun is what denotes a day. Now please spare me one of your desperate rationalisations, as I don't care to do mental cartwheels in order to make it mean something it doesn't say, or to deny something it quite obviously does say.
" Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as rubbish. At best,"
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html
You've given a very good example of why science and religion can never be compatible with each other. You've taken the approach of limiting religion to areas that cannot be proved true or false.
The same can be said about science for instance the 'theory of relativity' hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant between two points A and B. we simply cannot prove that by the scientific method but we are all happy to accept it.
So first you try to piggy back your superstitious beliefs on science, now you are attacking science because I point out your comparison was risible nonsense, by making the assertion that a scientific fact is as laughably wrong as the biblical creation myth?
You also ignored my question "Where does evolution evidence Magic apples, talking snakes, humans created instantly in their current form, or women created form a man's rib?"
I'm inclined to disagree with your claim as it happens, but more importantly I fail to see how you think the assertion that science is wrong about Relativity helps validate your religious beliefs.
Theists always do this, when they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for their beliefs, they resort to attacking scientific facts. Though they usually limit this to the ones that directly contradict parts of their religious beliefs, like Breezy and his endless assaults on the scientific fact of evolution.
Oh and on a current topic about global warming and rising sea levels recently released by the U.N, the top scientist have given a time frame that if humanity doesn't drastically reduce its carbon emissions within the next couple of decades the consequences will be irreversible and will have cataclysmic effects to humanity...hmm sound familiar?
Nah sorry, please explain how anticipating cataclysmic events that are explained by scientific evidence, in any way evidence anything supernatural? You're doing it again, trying to piggy back unevidenced superstition on scientific facts, by pointing at them and claiming "godidit". It's still risible nonsense.
Do you know what the term "selection bias" means?
Again, science and religion are not compatible with each other. Religion assumes things to be true even when the facts contradict it.
I firmly believe in the theory of evolution, I have no doubt this occurred but maybe not in the way you do. I'm sure you've heard the staggering numbers associated that by 'chance' we evolved so quickly without boring you with the numbers the chances we evolved in such a short time frame from a primal soup is one chance against all the grains of sand in the universe. If by chance we did evolve it was litterally a miracle and evidence for existence of God, by the way have Darwinists found those bones yet?
@Jason74
Miracles are events that happen contrary to the laws of nature, which is an oxymoron.
Miracles are not compatible with science.
What bones are you talking about? I was not aware that God had any bones.
That's bullshit. Show your work.
Pages