Why do creationists and some others incorrectly presume Big Bang Theory describes the creation of the universe?

In reality, it describes the expansion of the universe since time=0. It makes no claim about any creation or cause of initial conditions of the universe.

However, I keep seeing people claim that it does describe such a creation or cause of initial conditions.

That is apart from the other erroneous claims of it being an explosion.


FYI, here's a BBT FAQ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang....


If any of you assert that BBT does describe that, please provide a citation.

12 Answers

  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Your assertion is just semantics.

    What significance can there be in the existence of a Universe devoid of Time, Matter, Space, Dimension, and all the other facets of existence; and what was innate in this first entity that caused it to expand out into a finely tuned and profoundly ordered system?

    And what significance would there be to any of it if there was not a single sentient being to observe experience and appreciate?

    Your assertion answers nothing, solves nothing, explains nothing.

    It is just one step further back into darkness.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Problematic here is the definition of the word 'Universe' which technically means 'Everything that Exists' Hence by definition there cannot be 'another' Universe, or a parallel one, or an alternate one. Nor can God be 'outside' the Universe. Because the Universe is EVERYTHING that exists. There is no 'outside' of the Universe because the Universe by definition has no bounds. However when people say Universe, they typically mean the 'known' Universe and there is plenty of space 'outside' of that & the possibility of much that is technically 'inside' but largely unobservable. Also it's both incredible presumptive & profoundly illogical to say the Big Bang originated anything. The Big Bang is a theoritical point in time when all the matter in the known Universe exploded from. But to presume this primal matter/energy arose from nothing is to posit an effect without a cause.. which is the very definition of illogical. Why would any rational human presume that to be the case.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • E!
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    We always assume that there was a start, middle and that there will be an end to the universe. But what if we're wrong; what if it's always been here?

    Or maybe the whole thing is just inside the atom of Yamster?

    Oh wait, that didn't really answer your question, did it? Here's my take:

    Some creationists (including many Christians) are vehemently opposed to the BBT (Big Bang Theory) (not to be confused w/the BBC, although I'm sure some creationists are opposed to that too). They view it as an attempt to explain the origin of the universe apart from God. Others ascribe to the BBT, with the view that it was God himself who caused the Big Bang. These aforementioned creationists believe that the true purpose of the BBT is to deny God's existence. IF God's existence is denied than their whole purpose for being is well . . . shot to hell. It denies them.

    You have such a big brane Jabberwocky!

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 10 years ago

    As a chemist I've mulled this over since college 47 years ago. My thought is the rapid expansion (faster than the speed of light would make a big bang) of a pretty fair sized chunk, not a true singularity in the sense it can't be given dimensions at time zero. As for time zero, it exists but so does minus zero and before. There exist two wild cards in my own thinking, gravity and dark matter. Then we have the dimensions we exist in and those we can only see mathematically or physically as a shadow.

    Excellent link that makes my old brain hurt.


    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Fuzzy
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    Everything about this supposed event is plain conjecture and theory. There are other kinds of theories out there apart from the Big Bang.

    You have no idea, except for conjecture and interpretation that you believe, if it was a BIG bang or a small whimper that simply had no bang in it but only a lot of expansion - do you really know? Thus to claim other beliefs in error is also being in error.

    What the proponents of the Big bang say has probably gradually been modified over the decades. Are all scientists believing it now in accord on one fundamental explanation? ! That would be a miracle in itself. Isn't the LHC experiment an attempt at trying to delve into this so as to answer some of the unresolved questions about this subject?

    You may believe what you will in regard to the cause of it. If it did happen, I am sure God was behind it. The order of the cosmos is a silent testimony to that.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 10 years ago

    So far as I'm concerned, i rejected the Big Bang Theory as theologically motivated anyway. I do think it describes a beginning and that's problematic for a theist because it would provide too much evidence for God for freewill to exist. It never happened - it's analogous to the Boltzmann Brain.

    The other thing is, there is still the possibility of time being asymptotic, so that the Singularity is infinitely distant.

    I think you've seen my cosmological jiggery-pokery on this before.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    It is true that the Big Bang Theory does not describe creation. However, it does indicate that at some point time began (probably about 13-14 billion years ago). "Before" this there was no time. This indicates that the universe was, after the first instant, in motion from a state of non-motion (probably singularity). Some can use this to draw a metaphysical argument for the existence of God. Personally, I don't think we need to rely on the whimsies of science to draw metaphysical conclusions of God's existence.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 10 years ago

    It does describe the creation of the universe, as we know it. It does not describe why the universe was created or what caused the creation.

    Creationists are wrong on many levels of logic. Your question doesn't even begin to expose the flaws in their reasoning.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Wow that's way to much information you posted for me to go over. I believe your argument relies on volume rather than quality.

    I think the Big Bang is evidence for a cause of the universe. There's simply isn't enough mass/energy for the universe to continually compress and expand, and there is no empirical evidence for metaphysics to explain the multiverse theory.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Oh wow....I myself thought it explained how the universe came to be. Come to think of it, it doesn't explain the origin of the singularity, which is tied with the origin of the universe as well.

    Thanks for the heads up.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.