0

Regarding this recent question:

Comparison of Age of Earth according to Biblical theories

I would very much like to give the following answer which is reason-based, not faith-based. However, I strongly suspect that it will be deleted according to the site's policy. So I thought it would be best to post it here so that moderators can say whether it complies with the site's policy or not.


Hinduist and buddhist cosmologies have a much more serious conflict with current scientific cosmology than biblical cosmology has. While the times in biblical cosmology can just be understood as symbolical, hinduist and buddhist cosmologies are inherently cyclical, which is directly incompatible with the accelerated expansion of the universe that has been conclusively ascertained from multiple observations time and time again since 1998.

This is quite easy to understand. Let us assume that the universe has been evolving in cycles of the type: Big Bounce, decelerated expansion to a maximum size, accelerated contraction to a minimum size, Big Bounce and so on. Since we know beyond doubt that the expansion of the current cycle has been accelerating since around the half point between Big Bang and now and is tending to the exponential regime, we must ask ourselves:

"What could have possibly changed between the (infinitely many) previous cycles and the current one whereby the current cycle will not turn into a contraction but will expand forever, and moreover in an accelerated way?"

To which the only rational answer is:

"Nothing could have changed. Rather, the case is that there were no such previous cycles."

  • 2
    One comment I'd have is that the site's policy is not really just up to moderators, we only try to stick to what people have told us should be the sites policy on meta. So ideally anyone would respond to this with a sound answer, not just moderators. – Peter Turner Apr 8 at 18:51
  • I stopped reading at 'reason-based, not faith-based'. Everything I believe is reasonable, else I would not believe it. My faith is not a mindless superstition : it is utterly logical. 'Ye shall know the truth ; and the truth shall make you free.' If one doubts the biblical record (or if one adds to it from 'assumption') then one has already departed from reason. – Nigel J Apr 30 at 11:12
2

I think that question should be closed because it confusingly conflates YEC with all of Christianity.

The only other way to answer it is to say that most Christian Churches never taught that the Bible was meant to be read as a scientific manuscript and reading it that way is not very profitable to the soul.

Just trying to refute a scientific theory (even a bad one) isn't what this site is about and I'm glad you posted here first.

In the early days of this site we had a whole bunch of atheists asking gotcha questions, this is one reason why the questions here have to be answered in a definable stance coming from a set of Christian doctrines (like a Catechism or the liner notes of a DC Talk album).

One interesting thing I found on the hindu site was this which appears to suggest that Hindu scripture enthusiasts are more apt to bend their sacred scriptures around the science of the day (which seems like a bad idea to me). But essentially, we say the same thing. Scripture and science cannot contradict each other, I think we have vastly different rationales.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .