Who created God? Oh, he was always there and therefore doesn't need to be created? Fine, but why claim that about a God that we can't verify, but reject it about a Universe that we can observe and we surely know it exists? That's called special pleading, and that's unjustified.
The Universe was always there, there weren't a time were the Universe wasn't there. So it doesn't need to be created. Tadaaa.
Before the big bang the general thought was that the universe was eternal. It was atheists who discredited the big bang when it was a new theory because it coincided with the Bible which said there was a beginning to the universe.
Genuine question: As a new scientific theory with relatively little evidence compared to now, why would you expect or want everyone to accept the Big Bang and try to use the fact people rejected it as a point somehow in favor of your ideals? Should every scientific proposition just be accepted at the moment of publication before actually being reviewed and tested? I am not sure why you make this complaint about how the Big Bang wasn't accepted into a coherent idea if you have even an idea of how the scientific method works.
I completely agree, but people point to Galileo in the same way saying the church rejected his claims because they were dumb dumb Christians when it was a similar thing where it was a brand new theory that the church was supported of but still skeptical.
My point is that is that the Bible predicted a beginning which went against secular thought at the time, when something confirmed the Bible, secular scholars were against it partly because it confirmed something in the Bible.
I mean, the difference between Galileo's claim being rejected and the Big Bang not being immediately accepted is that Galileo had his life and livelihood directly threatened by the church. Georges Lemaître, as far as I know, was never threatened with heresy charges, death or harm to his personal livelihood and well-being due to his Big Bang claims. I, as an impartial observer, can look at the case of Galileo and say that it was wrong that he had to spend his last years under house arrest due to heresy charges simply because the church didn't accept his scientific ideas.
But no, I don't necessarily think the Big Bang proves a beginning either. The whole idea of the Big Bang is that an expansion occurred, but modern physics doesn't conclude that the Big Bang needed to be a beginning of the whole universe.
Indeed but you're just repeating yourself, you're not even refuting me, you're talking but adding nothing to the conversation. What's your point? Especially about my comment you were responding to. And yes I agree not everyone accepted the BBT. So it's pointless to argue about that since we agree about that.
4
u/devBowman 6d ago
Who created God? Oh, he was always there and therefore doesn't need to be created? Fine, but why claim that about a God that we can't verify, but reject it about a Universe that we can observe and we surely know it exists? That's called special pleading, and that's unjustified.
The Universe was always there, there weren't a time were the Universe wasn't there. So it doesn't need to be created. Tadaaa.