My scientist father in law is atheist but believes in the big bang.

Question

Can you believe in one and not the other?

Answer 1

whats the problem? an athiest doesnt believe in God and the big bang doesn't prove the existance of God so these two beliefs don't contradict each other

Answer 2

If you truly understand quantum mechanics then you will know that the Big Bang theory requires a creator by fiat. Think of the universe in reverse until it's small enough to be completely described by quantum mechanics alone. In order for the universe to start unfolding into what we see now, our universe's specific wave function had to be brought into existence as a certain possibilty out of an infinite number of other possible wave functions that had to collapse or at least decohere. At this fuzzy nanoscopic beginning, this required a 'Prime Observer' to enable this and set the expansion of the universe into motion and those initial conditions became the very facets of physical law. What we refer to as this finely tuned 'reality'. This need for an 'observer' comes from the basic quantum mechanical concept known as Shrodinger's Cat. Also, we must remember that the universe is being said to have come from nowhere which implies an act of 'creation'. This expansion of the universe is also alluded to 11 times in the Bible:  Job 9:8 ; Psalm 104:2 ; Isaiah 40:22 ; Isaiah 42:5 ; Isaiah 44:24 ; Isaiah 45:12 ; Isaiah 48:13 ; Isaiah 51:13 ; Jeremiah 10:12 ; Jeremiah 51:15 ; Zechariah 12:1

The Bible also alludes to the soon to come Big Rip:

Revelation 6:14 ; Isaiah 34:4 ; 2 Peter 3:10

Tell your father that we all agree that matter and energy can not be created, but yet here we all are... 'existing' no less. This leaves every atheist just staring in the mirror repeatedly saying, "But how?"

"These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a Being Who made all things and has all things in His power and Who is therefore to be feared."- Isaac Newton

"Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. "- Blaise Pascal

Answer 3

no, both strictly speaking are on the same side of the town.

Answer 4

to SPIRITUAL PARADIGM SHIFT:

I find it funny how someone can claim to understand quantum physics, yet think that an 'observer' means a conscious, intentional being (so how does a waveform collapse when you take a picture of a scene then?  Is the camera a conscious observer?) or not understand how 'something comes from nothing' (ahem, quantum fluctuation?)

Thank you and good night.

Answer 5

Sounds consistent to me.

Okay, who did the thumbs down.

Big Bang is a replacement theory for creation by God.

An atheist does not believe in God.

Therefore, it is logical that an atheist would believe in the Big Bang theory.

Is it me or is it that people just don't think or just plain uneducated in these new times.

Answer 6

No, it's atheist

I don't think that proof that the big bang happened is proof of divinity - we just don't understand how it could have happened yet.

There are theories around that the matter/energy that was ejected by the big bang came from elsewhere - maybe a huge black hole in another dimension/universe.  There is still lots to learn.

Answer 7

What "other"? I presume you mean a creator or designer?

Scientists look at facts and evidence and continue to look for new ideas and for new facts. The Big Bang is a current theory but as we learn more about the universe, a new hypothosis may come along that fits the facts and evidence better than the Big Bang idea. When you say your father-in-law "believes" in the big bang, you are implying science is the same as religion which relies on belief and faith regardless of evidence and it is not.

Answer 8

There are many Christians who are scientists. Believing in God and / or any religious teachings does not preclude accepting the results of reasoned inquiry into the workings of the universe.  

There are really two Bibles- the written Bible and the natural Bible.  Each Bible has its “message.”   As stated in 2 Timothy 3:16,  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœAll scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”  The key words here are, “in righteousness.”  The written Bible is a book of God’s love, of how to live a righteous life and achieve salivation.  It is not a scientific text.  Those who use the written Bible in ways for which it was not intended are dishonoring God and his creation – the universe and everything in it.

The power of the written Bible does not lie in it being word-for-word literal.  The power of the written lies in its ability to go outside the literal.  The verse in Mathew 5:13, “Ye are the salt of the earth:” makes no sense if taken literally – we are not salt.  But it becomes beautiful if taken metaphorically.  

The natural Bible is the most direct communication we have from God.  Whereas the written Bible is, at best, a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation of the original text – the natural Bible consists of the rules God set down at the creation of the universe.  Rule that are with us today.  Rules that are everywhere the same.  

The natural world and its manifestations – the animals and plants, the rocks and fossils, the land masses, the planets, stars and galaxies are all as a result of the rules laid down at the creation of the universe.  But just as you must study the written bible, so too you must study the natural bible.  At first glance, as a child, I thought I lived on a flat Earth with the Sun going around the Earth.  Man had such an initial view of the universe, too.  It was through study that we found that God’s universe was more beautiful and profound than that first simplistic view.  Those who want to take away the majesty of the universe and force it into a constricted literalistic biblical view are dishonoring God and his creation.

Just as a atheist can read the written Bible and understand the power of a verse like Leviticus 19:18, “… thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself…”  so too an atheistic scientist can study the natural world and uncover the God-given rules that exist in the world today and have existed since He created the universe.  The rules, so discovered, are just as valid as if uncovered by a Christian who is a scientist.  The key here is SCIENTIST - "one who seeks to know."

Answer 9

yes the big bang has nothing to do with religion, so if he is an atheist it does not contradiction, the big bang is the scientifical theaory of our existance.

Answer 10

he doesn't believe in God and believes in the big bang....usually these 2 go hand in hand.  

Yes you could be in one and not the other.

Am I missing something here?

Answer 11

Of course you can...  The Big Bang theory owes itself to observation of existing facts - that galaxies are flying away from each other.  The farther a galaxy seems to be from Earth, the faster it's going - like "fragments of a bomb," as Hubble called it.

Answer 12

When a scientist is persuaded that an idea is correct, the short hand is to say that they "believe" that it is correct.  However, if new evidence is discovered, the scientist will often change their mind.  It's more accurate to say that the evidence suggests that the idea is correct.

Science is not a faith system.  Scientists publicly admit that they were wrong or less right in the past.

In religion, faith in ideas for which there is no evidence is common.  It's less common for a theologian to admit that they were wrong in the past.  A notable exception was the Pope, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, who apologized to Galileo publicly.  But don't expect the Pope to issue a decree that the doctrine of the Trinity is non-Biblical, or something (this is a contrived example).

Atheism isn't a religion per se.  The atheist doesn't have faith that there is no God, but rather has no faith in any particular God.  Language fails. It would be a shortcut to say that the atheist believes that God does not exist.  The atheist may have good reason for accepting the idea that there is no God, for example, that there is no evidence of any God.  This isn't faith.  This is simply higher standards.

The Big Bang isn't a single idea.  It is a collected body of ideas.  It also isn't static.  For example, when evidence for dark energy was discovered in 1997, it took a few years, but the Big Bang theory was modified to address issues raised by the discovery.  It is very much a work in progress.  It is the best set of ideas that scientists currently have for describing the Universe that we live in.  It continues to make many predictions which, when examined, turn out to be correct.

Answer 13

So?   What does one have to do with the other?   The big bang does not assume a god.  If it did, then your relative might not believe in it.  The big bang is a purely secular concept, even if it was originated by a priest.    I'm an agnostic but  I believe in cats.  This is called an non sequitor. Believing in cats has nothing to do with being an agnostic.  

Answer 14

well, they don't contradict or support each other.

"but believes in big bang"? do u mean "but doesn't believe ....."

Answer 15

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day.This process has been going along for some 12 billion years.

Most athiests( myself included) have no problem with this model of the universe.

Its the Theists that claim the universe was created in 6 days and the Earth being 6000 years old ( despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary) where debate starts.

You can either change your beliefs to accept reality,

or change your reality to satisfy your beliefs.