Big Bang Vs Religion

Atheism and Christianity has different viewpoints in regards to the origin of the universe, but both share alikeness as well. Christians believe in God, but Atheist does not. Christians believed and that the universe and earth was created by God in six days and on the seventh day he rested. The atheist on the other hand believe that the universe was made of an atom, expanded to what we know now, energy and matter. According to Jack Wellman, Christians and atheists can agree upon is that the universe had a finite, singular, beginning point called “Big Bang Theory.” That the expanded universe came from nothing if we reverse it.

When comparing science and religion there has been a great rift. As long as humanity has believed in a creator there as always been thinkers trying to quantify and evaluate the truth behind religion, trying to disprove or prove a supernatural force.

Evolution proves that there is no reason to credit the design of the universe to God, and therefore, atheists have no reason to believe that God does exist. It is much more logical for atheists to base their beliefs on something that exists rather than on possibilities that have no way of being proven. With that said, atheists can reasonably believe that there is no God or designer of the universe because there is no evidence showing that there is. Using the strength of Darwinian theory, it can be hypothesized that the universe came from no intentional designer. Rather, it came from the unplanned and mindless processes of natural selection. A look into nature reveals such processes; slow and gradual changes have been found in the historical

Throughout Collins’s book he goes through many topics that have been a barrier between science and religion for a long time. I agree with many of Collins’s viewpoints when stuck in-between science and religion. This includes his view on the origins of the universe.

My argument and ideas are based on parts of Thomas Aquinas and William Paley’s arguments on the existence of God. As a Christian, at some point in time you wonder or start to question religion. Does God exist? I feel as though this is a natural question people ask through their personal spiritual journeys. The existence of God is provided by the premises of a first mover, a first causer, the proof of possibility and necessity, and God being the designer of the universe, therefore God exists. The natural world must have had a maker. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” I wonder if God made the universe, who made God? God is the transcendent personal cause of the universe, exists independently, there is no beginning. Therefore, nothing caused God.

Faith can present an opportunity to disregard continuing to grow in knowledge about the intellectual side of a religion, which has a negative effect if believers in faith actively participate in this. Plenty of information can be discussed about Christianity, but if faith and believing in God is the only argument a religion can make, that religion will not have any way to defend itself intellectually and factually. Dawkins states that "People lean on their faith as a crutch", which can be a correct statement in certain religious situations. The idea of faith should not be overused in conversations with stubborn atheists for instance, like Richard Dawkins, who will deny faith and ask what proof there is for the God and religious beliefs that faith is applied to. In replacement of faith and religion, Dawkins believes in "an initial stroke of luck" that created the universe, as stated in the book "True

When attending various classes that educate students on the science of the world, it seems, as there is not much room for argument. We are taught concepts that stand for no contradiction, for example, the functions and structures of the human body. However, when discussing, for instance, the creation of the Earth and the cosmos, scientism may be at play. At what point does a person step back and bring religion into the conversation when talking about the creation of the cosmos? When is it that a scientific explanation is not the only explanation?

Life is not a gift. We are all here because of science, there is no "god". At least there is no god in the way that the Bible tells us. We believe these stories told to us, which are obviously not true. If there is some sort of omnipotent being that exist in some sort of incomprehensible way, it's definitely not the way we were told. Christians believe that if the Big Bang just happened, then god must've been the one to create it. Obviously that's not true, but then we are still left with the question of, what did cause the Big Bang? Just like questions about the afterlife, somethings don't need to be answered. Creationism is the idea that there was no evolution, and everything just appeared. There's many very obvious holes in that belief that

1. A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon in the natural world with a background that incorporates facts and hypotheses. For example, the Big Bang theory is an explanation of how the universe began. It explains how a spark of billions of tiny of hot, dense, atoms exploded and grew exponentially, which created the planets and galaxies we know now. A belief is an intrinsic feeling that an individual believes is true and has faith that it is true. The difference between beliefs and a theory is that theory could have the potential to be false, but there is a foundation of facts and laws that prove its validity. Whereas a belief is more a feeling of truth with not really that much factual background and scientific research. For example, Christianity has a belief that the world was created by God. God created the sun, the universe, the animals on Earth, etc, There is no scientific proof that shows a being of some sort created the universe and animals came from the palm of its hand.

This class has been very informative in obtaining a better understanding of the young-earth/old-earth debate. I enjoyed the lectures, readings and videos and gathered enough information to share with the next individual. There are a few questions I have and would like to get further information on. One question is why is there a comparison of the Big Bang theory and evolution to God’s creation of the earth. Why does the world have two different views of how the world was created? From my understanding the Bible defines exactly how the world was created in the book of Genesis yet some individuals still challenge and find the words of the bible to be untrue. Young-earth vs. old-earth is described as young-earth being created by God in six twenty-four

A problem I have thought of for a long time and might want to solve one day is how the bible and the scientific theory of the creation of the universe do not match up. All I have really done is read over Genesis a couple of times and watched a few documentaries like Cosmos, but I do have a basic theory worked out. First of all, the bible is not literal. There is probably someone who was known as Jesus which I believe had great influence over the people back then. There might not be a God, but I lean towards the idea that there is, and the universe was not made in 7 days, at least not 7 earth days. To god, an earth day may be a couple of milliseconds. Cosmos describes a calendar with all of time since the beginning of the universe stuffed into

That is a tough question that every human is asked at least once in their life time. Religious groups and scientists around the world and throughout history try to answer this question.

Some Christians firmly believe that the universe has arisen completely through a miraculous act of God and completely reject scientific theories. This is called ‘creationism’. Another attack on scientific arguments is the ‘First Cause’ theory introduced by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas once quoted that “the universe couldn’t have simply sprung from nothing”; therefore, one is forced to reach the conclusion that it is caused to exist by something. The ‘big bang’ is not accepted, as this is not answering what caused this to happen. After a series of questioning, most reach the conclusion of God.

What is the relationship between religion and science? In his book, Consilience, Edward O. Wilson aims to find a unified theory of knowledge. Consilence also seeks to show how science is superior to and can replace religion. In this paper, I intend to show how Wilson understands this relationship and science as well as how. as well as show John Stuart Mill would agree or disagree with Wilson.

Throughout a majority of history up to this present date, we have come to rely on science as a means of explanation behind the reasoning behind many things: mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology. When regarding the subject of a greater entity or supreme being, the quote “Where science ends, religion begins” can be used to explain that there are things in which science cannot possibly hold the answer to, and the only reasonable explanation behind these things point to a greater being. Acquiring this newfound knowledge has altered my viewpoint on God, going on to strengthen my faith and belief in God now that I had been presented with scientific proof that God must have existed. There have been times throughout my life where curiosity had overcome me and I found myself asking whether or not God had actually existed, and now that I have been presented proof that he exists, all of my doubts have been washed away. There are three major areas in our universe that science cannot provide an explanation for, and can only be proven to be possible if a greater being had come into play. These topics included: the beginning of the universe, the design of the universe, and the complexity of our DNA.