Welcome once again to Feedback Friday! This comment is from our friend Brady and is in reply to this post about the Big BANG. He writes:

There are several problems with this post.

The first one being is that the Big Bang is actually not an explosion. It is widely affirmed that the term “Big Bang” is a misnomer. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe started out hot and dense and has expanded and cooled since then.

The second problem is that you claim that the Big Bang Theory is an atheistic theory. This could not be further from the truth. Before the BBT came, most atheists thought that the universe was static and eternal. The BBT actually threatened their atheism, because it implies that the universe had a beginning. So you actually have it backwards: atheists first rejected the BBT and Christians were the first ones to affirm the BBT. In fact, it was a Christians who came up with the BBT.

The third problem is that you say that Edwin Hubble was an atheist. This is blatantly wrong, as he was a Christian.

The fourth problem is that you say that the earth being in the center of the universe is evidence for God, but you never explain why that is the case. How is the earth being in the middle of the universe evidence for God?

Greetings again, Brady, and thank you for your questions.
1. This is semantic nit picking. If something starts out so small that it is considered of no size and it quickly enlarges until it is very VERY large, then perhaps you can explain to me why it is not an explosion. Especially since the model has it being an enormous release of heat and light. How is that NOT an explosion? Riddle me THIS Batman. Until then, I shall maintain that when something suddenly gets much much larger, this can be called an explosion.

IF the words “Expansion” or “Inflation” can really be said to be importantly different, feel free to make the case. Even if you do, I also fail to see how this pettifoggery is of any import. Nothing I say or defend really hinges on this choice of words, and thus this critique is not really necessary.

2. I understand that The Big Bang model proves atheism false and as such was rejected on philosophical grounds by atheists in its infancy, just as it is embraced for philosophical reasons by atheists now merely because it provides an alternative (or they falsely believe it does) to creation by God. I defend my assertion because Big Bang is not based on the observational data, it is not supported by scripture (and in fact contradicts in various ways) and it is now, out of desperation I suppose, the religious creation story of atheism. If one does not start with atheistic assumptions, I do not see any reason why they would embrace it. Christians may have embraced it- I do not know if that is true- but far too many churches erred in accepting evolution as well, and as I have shown several times over, Evolution is as wrong as wrong can be (provided you define it to mean what Darwin meant).

3. From his own words I would not believe Hubble was a Christian, and I have found no evidence to support your claim. Also, he is listed on the internet as a celebrity Atheist/Agnostic, so if you are correct the error is not mine alone. If you have a source to confirm this, please share it. Once again, the point I make is not made on his being an atheist, nor is it broken by his not being one.

4. Forgive me for failing to make the case. I figured this one was obvious. Even Stephen Hawking addresses it in his work- if we are at the center of the universe, the odds are so far against it that it becomes much more likely that we were placed here by an act of will as opposed to random chance dumb luck. This is why Hawking asserts the absurd and (even he admits) unprovable proposition that the universe looks, to any observer in it, anywhere in the universe, as though they are at the center.

See, the large scale map of the universe shows us as the center of a series of concentric bubbles- like being at the middle of a bull’s eye. This certainly would be unlikley. Hawking and others like him admit that this would make our place in the universe far more aligned with the special creation by God than by dumb luck, and that’s why he asserts the absurd and unprovable. In the quote I provide in the context of this article, he says “We believe it only on grounds of modesty…”

Actually, re-reading what I wrote, I do address most of your questions in the original article. Perhaps you ought to just give it a second, and more careful reading. Good advice for most situations I suspect.
Thanks again.

Another friend named Gary wrote in and said:

I’m surprised that you missed something in your humorous story about naming the Big Bang. It was a snide remark by opponent Fred Hoyle that stuck. Also surprised that you didn’t get heat from atheists who object to the explosion reference, but that IS the way it was originally described for many years, then the so-called inflation stuff came along and the explosion thing was no longer accurate. The BB has very little in common with the early days, and even less in common with actual science.

Greetings GJM! I did actually know that the name “Big Bang” was coined as a snide remark, but I’m still disappointed that no one came up with anything better. And I did get pushback from atheists on youtube about calling the big bang an explosion.

While I am familiar with the language of “inflation” I must ask, as I did to them,

what’s the difference between an explosion and a rapid inflation?

It seems rather nit picky to say nothing suddenly became a giant and rapidly expanding ball of intense heat and light but it WASN’T an explosion. If your car suddenly becomes a rapidly expanding ball of light and heat, you will tell the insurance company that your car exploded. I don’t think they would be justified to say “We would cover an explosion, but your car simply underwent a rapid inflationary period.”

Although I have had insurance companies try similar things with me in the past, but I digress. thanks for your comment.