Atheists, do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Even if George Lamaitre, a Catholic Priest first ?

Question

formulated what he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' later universally known as the Big Bang Theory.

Answer 1

The biblical account of creation in Genesis is a book informing man of his origins to God. A history book not a science book. This is where Dawkins gets confused. He tries to explain "God" through the scientific method. The knowledge of God is a gift of faith. A seed knowledge of the heart, which will blossom in the mind.  

Answer 2

Does it make any difference if a priest found out? It's still one of the more plausible explanations as to the creation of the universe.  

Answer 3

I'm not an atheist, but I'm guessing that atheists still believe in the Big Bang theory.

As a scientist, the only problem I have with the Big Bang theory is that it doesn't really mean anything.  If it explains the beginning of the universe, then there is more out there than the universe.  I would contend that it doesn't explain the beginning of the multi-verse or the beginning of time.  There is little or no contradiction between the big bang theory and religious beliefs.

Answer 4

who cares about the atheists. they crawled out from some garbage soup millions of years ago.  theyll probably evolve to grow wings and fangs.  

Answer 5

Too bad it still takes a leap of faith to connect Big Bang to God.

On the other hand, it also shows Atheists that even a Catholic Priest resorted to methods of science to avoid being dogmatic.  Also, that scientists are willing to give up incorrect theories and rely on evidence for support.  See how nicely things could fit together with EVIDENCE?

Conclusion: Insisting on evidence is not a bad way to go when forced into one dogma over another.

Answer 6

This is evidence that God is just an imaginary being that exist in the delusional mind.

A Catholic Priest need to search for a logical truth better than the faulty "truth" presented in the Bible.

Answer 7

No. The Big Bang Theory is not really a better explanation of observations than any other theory we have. You just don't hear about any other theories, because people want to believe in the big bang, and the science establishment has enshrined it. People want there to be a beginning, because it makes the universe match what we know - a birth, a life, a death. It is hard for us to imagine it not being analogous to a human life, having no beginning - so we cling to that idea, even those who aren't godbelievers.

I think if you look closely at what the BBT says and how it explains observations, you see a lot of overreaching and kludges. It's not good science. It doesn't matter who came up with it in the first place, although I am not surprised it was a religious person.