>>24009
>Lol. Sure, happens all the time. :^)
I'm sure you are not ignorant of the several theories of atheists intended to account for a big bang. The problem with appealing to apologetic pragmatism is that the big bang does not present an origin but an event horizon. If you will reason on the basis of a false neutrality and pretend like you aren't making any Christian assumptions in dealing with the evidence then you have absolutely no basis to make any claims concerning what was prior to the big bang because you have no data on it nor any conceivable means of getting any. Maybe reality is caught in an infinite cycle of explosion and implosion, who knows.
>What 'they' do you mean? Science and Theology?
The big bang theory and holy writ.
>Who's been filling your head with lies, I wonder?
Well, if the big bang theory is true, then the answer is God, because what His word says cannot be reconciled with it. Science is a formalized system of inductive reasoning, it cannot "say" anything and as such nothing can contradict it, scientists say things and they can be contradicted but they cannot hold the weight of science itself. The argument which we are having right now is manifestly not about science since no scientific data has been brought up nor could it conceivably be relevant, the topic we are discussing is philosophy of science. The attempt to equate the issues with theology and science and assert that theologians have their expertise and astronomers have theirs is little more than a brazen attempt to silence the theologians from having any opinion at all, even one which is purely theological. But if theology and science are both held to be at the least means of determining the truth, then they both ought to be heard. In particular the attempt to silence the theologians is an attempt to subjugate sacred scripture itself (which is the sole dataset of theology) to the whims of secular scientists, forbidding it from saying anything which is not in accord with the creatures of the academy. The majority of scientists now say that man is the product of a natural evolution beginning from a single molecule, should we be reinterpreting scripture to fit that theory? Most scientists now assert that homosexuality is part of human nature equal to opposite-sex attraction, perhaps we should be reconsidering our theology in light of that? And of course, most of them will say that God does not exist, so we're going to have to give that belief up too. Where will out subjugation to the wisdom of the world end, and on what basis?
>That has yet to be measured, friend (though I doubt not it will prove so). The Bible is trustworthy as the living, breathing, Word of God because of it's fulfilled prophecies, if by no other measure. These are objective. There are plenty of mysteries of the Christian walk that are not observable however, but because we can trust the Bible in the things that can be tested (like the origin of the universe and of mankind), then its bears strong merit as trustworthy also in these deeper matters as well.
Scripture warns us against being led with the subtlety with which the serpent deceived Eve away from the purity and simplicity of devotion which is to Christ. The serpent challenged the legitimacy of God's word and presented Eve with a choice, when she made her decision on what basis ought she have made her decision? If she has said no because she was worried about getting fat and losing her figure, she would have sinned even in making the correct decision because she would have acted on the basis of her own concerns and not God's command. Her duty was to reject the serpent's offer on the basis that God had said "Ye shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". While scripture has many proofs by which it shows itself to be the word of God it is to be received not because of the testimony of any man or council but because it is the word of God. I do not presume to sit on the bench and put God in the dock. I know with certainty that everything scripture says is true not on the basis of any proofs but because He who speaks it can make no errors. God is infallible, and the bible is the word of God. Infallible statements are certainly true, not possibly true, not probably true, but absolutely certainly true because by definition it is impossible that they are wrong.
Peter said that the house of Israel could be assured with certainty that God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Luke said he wrote his gospel so the reader could have certainty concerning the word of truth. Paul said that we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. By faith Noah built the ark in preparation for a flood even though he had no evidence. By faith Abraham offered his only son on the altar without evidence that God's promises were true. Yahweh swore by nothing but Himself, and the Lord spoke as one having authority. We do not and ought not believe because God has proven Himself to us in our rational autonomous wisdom, but because we are in submission to our creator like a little child to his father, believing without question and without doubt everything He says. I don't know that what the bible says is true because God has proven Himself to me in this or that area and therefore He is "generally reliable" and what He says over here is "very probably true", I know with absolute certainty that everything the bible says is true because God has spoken it, and I need no evidence to know it. When unbelievers demanded the Lord prove Himself to them He rejected their demand and said "This wicked generation shall be given no sign save the sign of Jonah". I cannot emphasize this enough, God's word is certain, and it is not justified by anything external to itself. The bible has authority on everything of which it speaks, and it speaks about everything. The scientist should take it for granted that Genesis 1-3 is true in the same way he takes it for granted that the earth is round, and interpret the empirical evidence in light of this which is known to be true. Proper science is thinking God's thoughts after Him.