The Origins of the Universe

[Deesse23]

But it does go directly against most Abrahamic versions of creation.

How? On the contrary, it goes in the direction of creation ex nihilo.

Nope

[Angrboda]

I'd say the problems are more mereological than anything else. Things neither separate nor combine unless there can be meaningfully said to be multiple parts of the whole.

[Abaddon_ire]

How? On the contrary, it goes in the direction of creation ex nihilo. It doesn't confirm it completely, I give you that, but we're one step closer to the religious account of how the world began.

Also, don't forget that the Big bang theory was originally suggested by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. I don't see why a priest would advocate a theory that supposedly damages their beliefs, as you seem to imply here.

Because of EVIDENCE.

How is this difficult for you?

[Paleophyte]

But that *isn't* the modern description. There was no 'combining' and then 'splitting apart'.

Expanding can be described as splitting apart. Something is expanding, after all.

Yes, it's called space-time and splitting it apart is a bad idea. Your post hoc shoe horning of scripture into cosmology is starting to get desperate.

You should bear in mind that the Qur'an is conveying the account of creation to people who lived in the 7th century. So the words that one should expect should mean something that these people can relate to.

Then you should probably bear in mind that neither Big Al nor Mo were trying to tell these 7th century nomads one bloody thing about the Big Bang.

[Deesse23]

Expanding can be described as splitting apart.

Nope

[polymath257]

But that *isn't* the modern description. There was no 'combining' and then 'splitting apart'.

Expanding can be described as splitting apart. Something is expanding, after all.

Nope. The two are not even close to being the same.

And it is space itself that is expanding, not anything material.

You should bear in mind that the Qur'an is conveying the account of creation to people who lived in the 7th century. So the words that one should expect should mean something that these people can relate to.

And that doesn't make the falsehoods in the account any less false. It isn't even a good analogy.

But it does go directly against most Abrahamic versions of creation.

How? On the contrary, it goes in the direction of creation ex nihilo. It doesn't confirm it completely, I give you that, but we're one step closer to the religious account of how the world began.

Also, don't forget that the Big bang theory was originally suggested by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. I don't see why a priest would advocate a theory that supposedly damages their beliefs, as you seem to imply here.

LeMaitre also warned the pope not to try to use the Big Bang theory as a support of religious views.

The *physics* and the *evidence* supports the BB theory. it has *nothing* to do with religious beliefs.

In particular, in the BB version that LeMaitre proposed there is no 'before the Big Bang'. Time itself starts when the universe does.

[Jehanne]

It's the Fallacy of Decomposition at work here on the part of Klorophyll:

In a flock of sheep, every sheep has a mother, therefore, the flock must have a mother.

Next to Post hoc ergo propter hoc, this one keeps me busy.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Expanding can be described as splitting apart. Something is expanding, after all.

Nope. The two are not even close to being the same.

And it is space itself that is expanding, not anything material.

You should bear in mind that the Qur'an is conveying the account of creation to people who lived in the 7th century. So the words that one should expect should mean something that these people can relate to.

And that doesn't make the falsehoods in the account any less false. It isn't even a good analogy.

How? On the contrary, it goes in the direction of creation ex nihilo. It doesn't confirm it completely, I give you that, but we're one step closer to the religious account of how the world began.

Also, don't forget that the Big bang theory was originally suggested by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. I don't see why a priest would advocate a theory that supposedly damages their beliefs, as you seem to imply here.

LeMaitre also warned the pope not to try to use the Big Bang theory as a support of religious views.

The *physics* and the *evidence* supports the BB theory. it has *nothing* to do with religious beliefs.

In particular, in the BB version that LeMaitre proposed there is no 'before the Big Bang'. Time itself starts when the universe does.

Klor seems to labor under the idea that if faced with something that challenged his beliefs he would either suppress it or lose his faith.... So Klor is both intellectually and spiritually weak. Also it's not even necessary to accept the creation ex nihilo to be Catholic .....

[R00tKiT]

Expanding can be described as splitting apart. Something is expanding, after all.

Nope. The two are not even close to being the same.

And it is space itself that is expanding, not anything material.

If space is expanding, any two galaxies are also expanding, AFAIK. I am not sure why you say here "not anything material"......?

And it's hard to convey the idea that space is expanding to people 14 centuries ago, you know. You should always keep in mind that the Qur'an's message is also directed to people who lived a while ago, with very limited scientific understanding.

And that doesn't make the falsehoods in the account any less false. It isn't even a good analogy.

You didn't point out any "falsehood" so far, you're just complaining that the Qur'an didn't convey modern theory verbatim, which is not even possible if its audience lived in the 7th century.

LeMaitre also warned the pope not to try to use the Big Bang theory as a support of religious views.

The *physics* and the *evidence* supports the BB theory. it has *nothing* to do with religious beliefs.

In particular, in the BB version that LeMaitre proposed there is no 'before the Big Bang'. Time itself starts when the universe does.

The BB theory is obviously compatible with orthodox religious beliefs about the beginning of the world. You still didn't explain why you think the BB theory is damaging for the Islamic account of creation. The Qur'an could've easily claimed that the Earth or the sky always existed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book does claim, and easily claim, any number of factually untrue things.