The Big Bang theory as a religious dogma

[newtonian]

Phenobarbara - Hi!<br /><br />Well, I agree - it is scientific evidence that favors the big bang and also the Biblical statement in Genesis 1:1 that our universe was created by God in the (a) beginning.<br /><br />I'll check out that book when I visit New York - it is not likely in libraries locally (I am in rural SE Louisiana - on high ground, btw.)

 

[newtonian]

vidar - you asked in response to phenobarbara's post:<br /><br />What evidence favoured the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory?<br /><br />Other posters have given some of the evidence, I will add more.<br /><br />First, to review: <br /><br />1. red shift indicates expansion from a starting point.<br /><br />2. CMBR is consistent with a starting point (in time and space).<br /><br />Here are a few additional points:<br /><br />A. Radioactive elements - compare radiometric dating - prove earth had a beginning - supporting Genesis 1:1. While this does not pin down the specific big bang theory, it certainly favors the big bang theory over the steady state theory.<br /><br />B. Thermodynamics. Entropy continues, but it stems from a hot origin in a small space - many studies in astrophysics support this.<br /><br />If the universe always existed, one would have to ask why it possesses its current thermodynamic properties.<br /><br />C. Spectroscopic studies - notably the lyman-alpha forest in quasar spectra - show a history of the IGM (intergalactic medium) that is not steady state by any means - it is consistent with a hot origin, but it also shows reheating not predicted by the big bang.<br /><br />There is more, but I will await response.<br /><br />On thread theme, note that Genesis 1:1 is a scientifically accurate statement.<br /><br />I don't know I would call Genesis 1:1 religious dogma, however.<br /><br />Unless belief that God created the heavens and earth at a beginning is necessarily religious dogma rather than simply scientific belief based on solid scientific evidence. <br /><br />Please note, for example, that my belief, like Isaac Newton's, is based both on science and the Bible.<br /><br />Therefore, to say my belief is religious would ignore the scientific basis - simply: it is not a case of either - or, but rather: both.<br /><br />Note also that Genesis 1:1 is not specifically the Big Bang model - it is consistent with that model which, as Saiph accurately notes, need

 

[jollyspaniard]

There's a flaw built into the question. Dogma is the politics of religion, the rules and regulations that instructs followers what to believe and how to act. For instance the Catholic Church's stance on birth control is dogma. Whereas belief in god in the purest sense isn't dogma.<br /><br />You might be able to go out on a very long limb and describe the Big Bang as a religous belief but I think that strains credibility. You can say some people believe in the Big Bang religously but I wouldn't take the metaphor any further than that.

 

[vidar]

Newtonian<br /><br />Einstein once responded to Bohr’s theory of quantum mechanics; “The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#The_.22Copenhagen.22_interpretation<br />In the same sense I will say; “I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw bombs either”.<br /><br />There are blue shifts as well as red ones. The CMBR is not proof that the whole universe exploded at once. A ‘not-so’ big-bang by the 10^10 stars in a single galaxy, could cause such effects as well.<br /><br />I think in the sense of the Genesis, it’s mainly about the sun, not the whole universe. What Moses was told was what he was able to perceive, not all the mysteries of the universe.<br />