Now, faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which you say/think but not see is what you believe.

I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian.

Many scientists believe the beginning of Universe was about 13.8 billion years ago. A subset of those scientists believe an infinitesimally small, densely packed, super-heated region (point) exploded as the Big Bang, and other scientists believe that nothing exploded as the Big Bang.

Regardless of alternative models, such as a cyclically oscillating Universe, I am focusing on the beginning, that is, the origin of the Universe.

I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old. For me, and not for scientists of the Big Bang persuasion, "faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) applies because my assurance of things hoped for is my Lord and my God Jesus Christ's triumphant return while scientists are not hoping for the Big Bang since scientists believe the Big Bang is an event of the past.

Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science. I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?

npts2020 published an excellent description/definition for science at https://scienceforums.net/topic/140094-the-ultimate-religion-theory/ as "Science isn't about 'proving' or 'disproving' anything. It is about putting forth the best explanation for a given phenomena using experimentation and observation." This is very pertinent.

1 minute ago, Kermos said:

Now, faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which you say/think but not see is what you believe.

I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian.

Many scientists believe the beginning of Universe was about 13.8 billion years ago. A subset of those scientists believe an infinitesimally small, densely packed, super-heated region (point) exploded as the Big Bang, and other scientists believe that nothing exploded as the Big Bang.

Regardless of alternative models, such as a cyclically oscillating Universe, I am focusing on the beginning, that is, the origin of the Universe.

I believe the Universe is about 6,000 years old. For me, and not for scientists of the Big Bang persuasion, "faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) applies because my assurance of things hoped for is my Lord and my God Jesus Christ's triumphant return while scientists are not hoping for the Big Bang since scientists believe the Big Bang is an event of the past.

Scientists believe the Big Bang Theory is science. I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?

npts2020 published an excellent description/definition for science at https://scienceforums.net/topic/140094-the-ultimate-religion-theory/ as "Science isn't about 'proving' or 'disproving' anything. It is about putting forth the best explanation for a given phenomena using experimentation and observation." This is very pertinent.

You seem to have a rather naïve religious faith. There is no conflict between the science of Big Bang cosmology and Christianity. In fact the Big Bang was first put forward by a Christian priest, Mgr. Lemaître! It is only those fundamentalists who believe in biblical literalism - a small minority within Christianity - who struggle with accommodating science to their beliefs. By the sound of it you may be one of those.

The Big Bang theory, like all theories in science, is based not on proof but on observational evidence. There is evidence, in the form of the observed cosmological red shift and in the observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). So yes, based on the evidence, scientists have a degree of faith in the Big Bang model for the expansion of the cosmos from a very small early state just under 14bn years ago. Please note by the way that this is not a theory of how the cosmos came to be. We have no evidence of that. It is a theory of how it initially expanded, because that is what the observations indicate.

The faith science has in its theories is not religious faith, though. You need to understand that in science all theories are provisional. They represent the current best model we have. As such, they may be subject to future change in the light of new evidence. So scientists are not committed to a belief system as eternal truth, in the way that many religions demand of their adherents.

Your postulate is therefore misconceived, due to your lack of understanding of the nature of science. That's OK, it's common for people outside science to have only a hazy grasp of what it really is. And in a way you are right that scientists are philosophers, though day to day they may not be aware of it, since what I have been laying out here in simple terms is the underlying philosophy of science.

The "faith" involved of science is in ones ability to use experience and logic to make sense of the world. As experience is gained, the explanations will come closer and closer to a being exact model of a given phenomenon. OTH religious "faith" requires no proof whatsoever and often is very different from reality (eg.- geocentric universe).

3 hours ago, Kermos said:

I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian.

Many scientists believe the beginning of Universe was about 13.8 billion years ago. A subset of those scientists believe an infinitesimally small, densely packed, super-heated region (point) exploded as the Big Bang, and other scientists believe that nothing exploded as the Big Bang.

I don't like your argument. You claim you used to believe in evolution, yet you make a bunch of rookie mistakes about it. The BB theory says NOTHING about the beginning of the universe. The theory says nothing about a super-heated region (it was the entire universe at the time), the theory doesn't say anything exploded (it was a rapid expansion of all there is, not a expulsion into some other space).

For me at least, it's all about what you believe. However, belief needs a basis. You base your belief on faith that the interpretations of your religion are accurate and unassailable. I base my belief on trust in the information we gain from using the scientific method to maintain objectivity. The BBT uses many different cosmological tools to derive the information about the evolution of the early universe, and it shows that when we wind the clock back, the early universe was extremely hot and dense. If you'd kept studying science, you'd have the tools to verify the information you're being asked to believe. You chose to believe someone's extremist interpretation of your religion, which probably requires a LOT less work and study, but it also means you gave up your thinking cap. Too bad.

Moderator Note

Evidence supporting the Big Bang and evolution are matters of science and not religion, which are fairly easy to find at credible science sites. You are free to ask questions in the appropriate sections of the site.

As for your personal beliefs: we don’t care. Preaching isn’t allowed.

4 hours ago, Kermos said:

I postulate that the Big Bang Theory is based on faith. I propose scientists of the Big Bang Theory are more accurately identified as philosophers of the Big Bang Philosophy or Evolution religion, and I write this because of the difference between science and faith. Can any of you scientists rationally explain away this postulate as wrong?

That’s not what a postulate is, but cosmology has models that make testable predictions, and there’s evidence that supports the proposal. That makes it science.

npts2020 published an excellent description/definition for science at https://scienceforums.net/topic/140094-the-ultimate-religion-theory/ as "Science isn't about 'proving' or 'disproving' anything. It is about putting forth the best explanation for a given phenomena using experimentation and observation." This is very pertinent.

Yes, it’s pertinent, and why your “postulate” is nonsense.