Is God the initiator of the "singularity" we call the "Big Bang"?
Apologetics is essentially the study of Christian theology as it compares to other worldviews in order to give a defense of faith and to challenge others' beliefs. With this in mind, there appear to be divergent views, especially among theologians, regarding the "Big Bang" theory. Is God the explanation of the origins of the universe as the initiator of the "spacetime singularity" we call the "Big Bang?" What are your thoughts?
Is the speed of the expansion of the universe decreasing? If not, then how is the 'Big Crunch' theory going to hold true?
A2A. In my book, nobody sane has any major investment in any "theory" of what will happen in such an insanely distant future. The Big Crunch hypothesis is obvious from the Big Bang hypothesis, which, in turn is so much supported by evidence that it does deserve to be called a "theory."It's obvious from the general principle that what can go one way, can go the opposite, given enough time to wait. It's obvious from what might have preceded the Big Bang, i.e., how all that matter ended up on one place. But that doesn't make it true.The Big Bang singularity would have erased whatever came before, in theory, so evidence as to it would be the stuff of pseuodoscience, though it is not pseudoscience, per se, if maintained only as speculation or possibility.The theory that the universe is expanding has evidence behind it, and, from what I'm reading, there is also evidence that the expansion is accelerating. I could say that maybe God has not finished saying "Be!" yet, but if I insisted on that as fact, it would be pseudoscientific. I don't. It's just a story, a myth if you like, myths can be teaching stories that are told, not as truth, but for the effect they have on our state of being.Whether or not the acceleration would decline and reverse would depend on what is causing it, as others have noted. If the cause is a substance that is subject to gravitation, then if this effect declines, that reversal could again reverse as the universe contracted. It would bounce back and forth. At least that's my first impression.
The universe has always existed.?
No matter what theory is put out there the universe has always existed. Ether out universe has always existed in its current state, or it has always existed in a small form before the big bang. If the big bang is correct that the universe has been sitting in nothing for forever, because for nothing to exist it must always have existed and the universe must have always existed along with it. Because the universe did not appear out of nowear.
Why do atheists believe everything magically poofed into existence?
Why do they believe in magic when they claim to be so scientific? How can they believe such an absurd story of magic that defies logic and science? It's just insane!
What is the total content of the space and universe, whether it is infinite?
dude.. thousands of years.. thousands of years is what we've spent trying to answer this question.. its 'the' biggest daddy of puzzles.. no clear answers yet.. even the universe which we see is only 5% of the matter that's out there... dark matter and dark energy make up the other 95%I think philosophy is more apt to deal with this question.. they've had more time to think about it. Read cosmologyMy Take- go deeper into the atom, into nucleus, into protons, into quarks and you realise its all a bumbling packet of vibrations.. The content of the universe supposidly fit into a single atom sized singularity.. so everything that there is ... the total content is that one tiny atom sized egg... and since we are all basically a manifestation of the energy, infinity doesn't come into play.. like it doesn't when you imagine something, consciousness ( electrical signalling of your brain) allows you to expand according to your will, looping in a network.. ps. that sounds like we need to call in a super organism that can imagine it all and make us exist..... but that wasn't the intention
Who think big bang theory is illogical?
The Big Bang theory is very logical, but the problem lies in trying to make the concepts accessible to the lay public by conveying them in analogies that relate them to more familiar concepts. Ultimately, the reason that so much popular science writing falls short, including that on Big Bang cosmology, is that few people are willing to devote serious study to mathematics and science, and plumb the internal consistencies of difficult subjects.