The Bing Bang does not contradict Catholic Teaching

Due to the typos, confusion, and now somewhat irrelevancy of the whole point, lets just drop the first paragraph. I would be happy to debate the topic in another debate entirely, but we should stick to this subject. Although its relatively easy to see we cannot fully comprehend God. If we fully comprehended God, then every religion would be the same because we would fully and therefore equally understand who He is. Ok, if God just had left out the point that He created the universe, then he would have failed to include quite possibly His most important role in the universe: Being the Creator. That would be a foolish thing for Him to do as it an essential piece to religious faith/belief/and knowledge of and about God. Lets just say you had created the entire universe and every being was dependent on you. Would you really not include that in the religion you brought to the people? God gave us free will. That means we gave us an intellect and ability to search for ourselves. God gave us the means by which we could make scientific discoveries such as the Big Bang. He is letting us, through human reason, uncover and unravel the mystery behind the creation which He set in motion. If God really came down and told us every answer to every scientific question, that would inherently eliminate a joy/source of mental growth/job opportunity for thousands of people. If God wants what is best for us, wouldn't it make sense He then would have left things to be discovered for those people whose minds sought out scientific answers. God would have robbed the world of our Einstein's, Hubble's, Lemaitre's, Newton's, Pascal's if God had told the ancient Hebrews how the universe scientifically came to be. Those men would have served no purpose in the history of human development had God given us scientific answers. He left those questions for us to discover so that we may have the greatest scientific thinkers in human history. So yes, it was an ingenuous way to form the creation story. And as there are bad catholics, so too are there bad catholic theology curriculums. I, unfortunately, would agree with you that many schools/universities/teachers/PSR classes fail to really teach Catholic theology well. These classes often do not focus on the difficult reason and revelation which the Catholic faith possesses. Instead of teaching St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs in order to reveal a creation story and then studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church, many teachers will just say "Read Genesis, and write about how you feel about it." There is a lack of true Catholic theology being taught, which is one of the reasons I chose to debate this topic. So I agree that poor and inaccurate theology that lacks depth is being taught. And that needs to be reformed. I don't think you understand what the Bible is. So let me refresh: The Bible is the collection of 66 Scriptures from the Old Testament and New Testament that the Church bound together in one book which is now called the Bible. If you just take 4 Scriptures from the Old Testament, you do not have the Bible. If you put 65 Scriptures on Microsoft Word, it is not the Bible. The Bible is EACH AND EVERY SCRIPTURE COMBINED AND BOUND IN ONE BOOK (or now in this new technological age, putting them all on a PDF would suffice). I think you are mistaking individual Scriptures for being the Bible. That is wrong. Because the Church selected 66 Scriptures and bound them together, the Church created the Bible. The Catholic Church did not have any established physical churches made out of stone. The Catholic Church did not have any wealth or property to call its own. The Catholic Church did not have any legal rights. But the Catholic Church existed amongst the people, chiefly the apostles and disciples, (such as Peter) who went throughout the land and preached the word of God and Jesus' life on Earth and resurrection. Jesus said to Peter You are the foundation on which I build my Church. So you see, the Catholic Church did not need any material possession to officially existed. This is because wherever anyone who preached the God's message and Jesus's life and resurrection, the Holy Spirit and hence, the Catholic Church, was there. So the Catholic Church was officially established at Pentecost, roughly 40 days after Jesus' resurrection. And if this is so irrelevant as to who wrote Scriptures in the Bible and to who created the Bible, then why did you bring up that the writers of the Old Testament, the Hebrews, were Jewish? Why would you say in the third round that, and I quote: "These stories were passed down for generations by the Hebrews untill some scribes finally got around to compiling them into a comprehensive collection. Even then those Hebrews weren't Catholic they were Jewish!"? Clearly it seemed you had a plan to use the fact they were Jewish in an argument against the Bible's authenticity? Or did you just want to include that for fun? So in round 3 you say that "Catholicism doesn't really have one central rule list of what it thinks about which parts of the Bible are taken literally which aren't" but then in Round 4 you agree with me and say "While there is the big book of rules my point was that not everyone follows in to the letter and those people are still Catholics." No, your point in the opening sentence of round 3 was explicitly stated that there was no rule book, but Catholics can make up their own rules. But now all of a sudden you try to change your point in round 4 in being that there IS a rule book but people don't follow it! Which is it? Because you have explicitly contradicted yourself in two different rounds about the existence of a "rule book". Yes, I would agree if a person goes to Church as often as they can and makes an honest effort to attend and pay attention, as well as makes an honest effort to truly follow Catholic practices, then they are a Catholic. But here is a different between breaking Catholic doctrine or dogma, which are both infallible, and not confirming to a certain Catholic tradition. Here is an example, yet it is extreme: Joe, a catholic, murdered an innocent man. One Catholic doctrine/dogma is you shall not murder. By killing an innocent man, and breaking and infallible Catholic doctrine/dogma, Joe can be excommunicated from the Church unless he seeks honest repentance. Joe, a Catholic, receives a tattoo. Joe believes tattoos are cool and acceptable. Eric is a Catholic who personally opposes tattoos. But because getting a tattoo is not an issue of infallible doctrine, Eric and Joe are equally good Catholics, whether one supports tattoos or the other does not. Any good Catholic can support tattoos and thats ok. And any good Catholic can oppose tattoos and thats ok. But when we deal with literal interpretation of the Bible, reading the Bible literally is going against church teaching. However, it does not remain grounds enough for excommunication. Rather, that person is failing to fully grasp the Catholic faith and should be redirected towards the right path. The reason Martin Luther was excommunicated is different. His literal interpretation of the Bible and his 95 theses were not enough in order to be excommunicated. It was his public burning of the Papal Bull and changing of the seven sacraments as well as removing clergy from the Church that was the grounds for his excommunication. Obviously no one is perfect, therefore no one will follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the letter. And this is why the Catholic Church has reconciliation for repentance and forgiveness. The Catholic Church is called the Church for sinners for a reason. The Catholic Church knows we all will make mistakes, but it is in our seeking forgiveness for our mistakes that we are redeemed. That is one of the most important missions of the Catholic Church. And actually it is relevant. Lemaitre was a relatively delicate man. He preferred to separate his religion with his science so he wouldn't upset people from looking at his finding objectively. However, there is something to note that when the man who first discovered the Big Bang was a practicing Catholic priest, whose research was funded by a Catholic University, and whose findings, once published, were inspected by the Pope of the Catholic Church, there is an intimate connection between the Big Bang and Catholicism. Lemmatire said, that while this does not by necessity prove God's existence, his discovery does coincide with "Isaiah speaking of a hidden God." Furthermore, Pope Pius XII referred to the Big Bang as scientific validation of the Catholic faith. So actually it is relevant.