Let's start with a little backstory/setting about myself and my beliefs and how they tie in with this thread. I was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, and up until I'd say a couple years ago, my beliefs were that the Christian God created everything in existence. I was born into a Christian school, the only thing I was taught was Christian religion, so of-course that's what I was going to believe. Then, I started looking stuff up online about different theories and beliefs of how the Universe came about, or how it was created, such as the Big Bang theory, and later on the Big Bounce theory, and many others - needless to say, I lost my faith in (any) God, let alone the Christian God.
To kick start this thread and point it in the direction I intend, let's start to discuss two things;
The Law of Conservation of Energy
Both of these are factual, evidence based, and are proven to be true through repeated experiments, repeated results of said experiments, as-well as mathematics. These are not based on a 'belief' or on 'faith'. They are things you can essentially, for lack of a better explanation, see with your own two eyes. Again, they are not based on 'faith' or a 'belief' that has not been proven. A (poor) example I constructed is, I can believe one of two things;
A) A car is not barreling towards me about to kill me, or,
B) A car is barreling towards me about to kill me.
You can choose to believe the evidence and proof that the car is barreling towards you, because you can see it with your own two eyes, or, you can have 'faith' (not based on evidence or proof) that the car is not barreling towards you. Which seems more logical, and real? Obviously that the car is, in-fact, barreling towards you.
So with that out of the way we an move on to what these two previously mentioned concepts/theories are.
First, Hubble's Constant, is the observation that everything in the Universe is moving away from itself - stars, planets, etc. it's all moving away from itself - Edwin Hubble discovered this and saw this with his own two eyes (again, proof, not faith or a belief) when he was looking through a telescope one night in 1929. This constant has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and there is no argument, that merits any amount of weight, against the expansion of the Universe. We can observe stars moving away from each other with our own eyes through the use of telescopes, and through the use and combination of special telescopes and computers we can see the wavelengths, and frequency of the wavelengths of celestial bodies changing over time, because again, they are moving away from each other (they are moving away from the apparent observer) this is something called Redshift. When an object moves away from an apparent observer, it moves more towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum - when an object moves closer to an apparent observer, it moves more towards the blue end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Redshift has been measured in celestial bodies, therefore once again, proving that the Universe is expanding and everything is moving away from itself.
But we have to remember that in order for this to be true, everything in the Universe would have to have an origin - a common point at which it all began, both physically and chronologically. If it were not expanding and moving away from a common point, it could be considered to be infinite, but is there such thing as 'infinite'? No. At least, not in terms of the Universe and its origin. If the Universe, both physically and chronologically was infinite, I.E it extended forever in the past and future, there would be no present. Think about it, if something extended forever backwards, it could not have a present in time nor space, because it would always be extending backwards, and the same goes for the opposite, extending forward. So we can safely rule out the Universe being infinite, chronologically and physically.
So we know that the Universe had a common origin, a beginning. But this is where the second idea/matter I mentioned earlier comes into play, the Law of Conservation of Energy. Basically the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only transformed from one form to another. Now let's take into consideration that everything in the Universe is energy - you, me, the Earth, the Moon, even the 'empty' vacuum of space is made of energy, and as we previously discussed, the Universe has an origin (a beginning, as proven by Hubble's Constant and the Redshift of planets/stars) but at the same time, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so an 'origin' or 'beginning' can be ruled out.
But wait, if the Universe has/had no origin or beginning, that would mean it is infinite, both physically and chronologically. But wait! As I previously stated, the Universe can not be infinite, physically nor chronologically, because again, if it were infinite in either or both aspects, it would have no present and it would not exist. This is quite a paradox - on one hand, we have proof that the Universe has an origin and a beginning, meaning it is not infinite (Hubble's Constant) and on the other, we have proof that energy (the Universe) cannot be created nor destroyed, (the Law of Conservation of Energy) meaning that the energy of the Universe existed forever (or, infinitely).
How can this be? It just doesn't make sense. So does this paradox call for the existence of a supreme being that exists outside of laws, and proof, and physical/chronological reality, and logistical reasoning? In the Bible, the Christian Bible, it says that God is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the end all be all of everything that ever was, is, or ever will be. So, would this coincide with and back up His existence? Does this paradox call for the existence of something that can do literally anything - including overrule one thing that states another? I.E does this call for a power or force that can make a red apple also be blue at the same time - or make something negative be positive at the same time? Does this paradox call for a power that can agree with a disagreement? Or make something wrong, be right at the same time?
The Bible says, "in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" nowhere in the Bible does it say how, he created the Heavens and the Earth. We have proof of the Big Bang, yet no proof of God Himself, so could God have used the Big Bang as a sort of 'medium' through which he created the Universe? Because again, he have proof and evidence of one thing, the Big Bang, yet no proof or evidence of God Himself. Is God the Big Bang? Is the Universe God? I actually am not the first nor only person to suggest that God created the Big Bang. You can read more about God creating the Big Bang (or in other words using the Big Bang to create the Universe) here at these websites;https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/the-big-bang/http://www.icr.org/article/did-god-use-big-bang/https://www.gotquestions.org/big-bang-theory.htmlhttps://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... s-word-the
Now you may notice that they don't all agree with each other. One says that God could have created the Universe using the Big Bang while the other says that God and the Big Bang can not coincide with each other. That is why you have to delve into both sides of the question, you have to look at the question from both sides, if you look into the subject solely with the intention/belief that God did not use the Big Bang to create the Universe, that is what you will believe. If you look into the subject solely with the intention/belief that God did/could have used the Big Bang to create the universe, that is all you will believe. However, if you go into the subject with an open mind, accepting both sides of the story, your final conclusion will not be skewed or biased in any manner, and will be drawn upon logical reasoning and facts.
So there you have it, basically what this thread is about is asking did God create the Universe using the Big Bang? I know I bluntly asked is God real in the title and beginning of the thread, but as you delve deeper into the thread you will see more of what I was getting at, and again, that is essentially asking if you think God could have used the Big Bang to create the Universe, if He does in-fact exist. And again - if you are going to just troll and flame, or argue for no reason, don't even bother posting.
I hope everything that I said makes sense, it's 2:51 AM and I haven't slept in over 24 hours so I'm kinda out of it, but after re-reading everything that I have said it seems to all make sense. I hope some educational and productive discussions can arise from this thread!