Thread: The big bang cannot be

Originally Posted by Dewitback

How can atheist criticize Christians for believing in a God, when their own explanation for the big bang is that is just "IS"?

The people in this forum have put up tons of answers an explantions to atheist's questions about God, and refuse to take "mysterious ways" and "it just is" as an answer. Well, how about your own belief in this? It just is? If you can believe in that, then you can believe in God with a simple answer that God just is.

It's different,Christians beleive in the bible. A book with numerous authors which has been changed many times for whatever reason and has absorbed many Pagan traits so as to indulge potential converts.

Scientists don't claim to be the straight path to whatever,in science nothing is proven. My science teacher will quickly correct you if you infer something in science is proven. scientists dont like that word.

The big bang is merely a theory to account for how the universe is today and scientists have data to support the theory,whilst it may not be perfect it does provide somesort of an explanation for the way the universe is today unlike the bible a book of jewish and pagan fairtytales which tells you how the world is today in obscure and sometimes not so obscure symbology.

To compare the credibility of scientists to barely literate goat herder peasants(people who wrote the bible) is absurd.

Where did the 'something' come from? Another bang that required 'something'?
How were the conditions so perfect?

I've never wrapped my head around this, taking it from a strictly scientific and material standpoint. Aditionally, even given an infinite amount of time, how do you propose the earth the way it is today came about? An exploding star? I'm sure the logical mind of evolution made sure organic material spawned and evolved together to get what we have today. It takes a bit of faith to believe this complex ecosystem came from nothing, or even from a magically pre-set intense gravity pinpoint that brought about the bang. Something isn't right...

Fine, but many people speak with full certainty on the matter. This is the same with evolution as a whole whereupon people use it as a fact. There is much evidence, admitably, but there are flaws in the theory yet to be ironed out.

Even still the theory of evolution, taken as a fact, does not explain the origin of 'something'. Doesn't that leave room for some huge fundamental questions?

Certainty = non-existant

I think this is the only true rule.

That's not a very scientific way to look at things...

I'm certain there's a computer in front of me. As certain as a human being can be.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Certainty = non-existant

I think this is the only true rule.

Are you certain about that?

Originally Posted by De-lousedInTheComatorium

Are you certain about that?

Oh snap!

No. And that proves me right. By the way, is that computer REALLY there? can you prove it?

Originally Posted by De-lousedInTheComatorium

Are you certain about that?

Oh, and the certainty=non-existant thing is from human perspective, of course.
By the way, even some scientists admit that they can NEVER be sure about anything.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

No. And that proves me right. By the way, is that computer REALLY there? can you prove it?

Oh, and the certainty=non-existant thing is from human perspective, of course.
By the way, even some scientists admit that they can NEVER be sure about anything.

I'm "as certain as a human being can be". This is as good as it gets, so I'm rolling with it.

Science can touch the truth 'as close as it gets' too, which is why I want them to try and explain where 'something' came from during and or before the bang.

I never said that my philosophy has to disrupt scientific progress. Even though we can never be 100% sure, we should be reasonably happy with 99,99%.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

I'm "as certain as a human being can be". This is as good as it gets, so I'm rolling with it.

Science can touch the truth 'as close as it gets' too, which is why I want them to try and explain where 'something' came from during and or before the bang.

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

No. And that proves me right.

But you said you think it's the only true rule.

By "think" did you mean "believe"? Or did you mean "maybe"?

If you meant "maybe" then I get what you're saying.

I can't be sure that we can't be sure about anything. But I can't be certain about that either, etc etc.
So I think it MIGHT be the only rule. I, as a human with limited capabilities, am not in the position to call anything 'true'.

Originally Posted by De-lousedInTheComatorium

But you said you think it's the only true rule.

By "think" did you mean "believe"? Or did you mean "maybe"?

If you meant "maybe" then I get what you're saying.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Where did the 'something' come from? Another bang that required 'something'?
How were the conditions so perfect?

I've never wrapped my head around this, taking it from a strictly scientific and material standpoint. Aditionally, even given an infinite amount of time, how do you propose the earth the way it is today came about? An exploding star? I'm sure the logical mind of evolution made sure organic material spawned and evolved together to get what we have today. It takes a bit of faith to believe this complex ecosystem came from nothing, or even from a magically pre-set intense gravity pinpoint that brought about the bang. Something isn't right...

Again it's a theory, not fact.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Even still the theory of evolution, taken as a fact, does not explain the origin of 'something'.

You may as well be faulting your dishwasher for not receiving emails. The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain how life has changed over time. How life started is of no consequence to this theory.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

I've never wrapped my head around this, taking it from a strictly scientific and material standpoint.

Again, let me wholeheartedly recommend Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." It's cheap, it's clear, and it's an easy read. Please don't give up on understanding before you have read up on it.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Again, let me wholeheartedly recommend Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." It's cheap, it's clear, and it's an easy read. Please don't give up on understanding before you have read up on it.

Sounds good. I'll pick it up when I can. I've actually watched a documentary including that work.

Originally Posted by Mark75

You may as well be faulting your dishwasher for not receiving emails. The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain how life has changed over time. How life started is of no consequence to this theory.

Why is it of no consequence (confusing and irrelevant analogy aside)? Would it not be of interest to the scientific community to know how the conditions and substances got there? I would think it would be very important since it would either help support or refute the big bang theory and, in the long run, the development of species. Right now the theory assumes the conditions and substances were there with no reasonable explanation.

Also, evolution aside, isn't the origin of 'everything' of some interest to any scholarly minds? It seems to be overlooked since the 'guess' that everything was in the right order takes precedence.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Again it's a theory, not fact.

I realize that, but I still stand behind this:
*

Fine, but many people speak with full certainty on the matter. This is the same with evolution as a whole whereupon people use it as a fact.

*

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

I can't be sure that we can't be sure about anything. But I can't be certain about that either, etc etc.
So I think it MIGHT be the only rule. I, as a human with limited capabilities, am not in the position to call anything 'true'.

Are you sure about that? Sorry. Postmodernism never made sense to me, maybe it means something to you.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our universe might not be eternal, but existence itself is eternal. Our universe is most likely part of a mulitiverse that is eternal, but if not, it is still not the only thing that exists. Existence never came from nothing. There was never nothing.

Heh, a point we agree on.

Where did the 'something' come from? Another bang that required 'something'?
How were the conditions so perfect?

A vacumm.
The conditions where not perfect. Look at the universe must of it is lifeless and unliveable. Even then most animal become extinct, so I wouldn't use the word perfect.

Aditionally, even given an infinite amount of time, how do you propose the earth the way it is today came about? An exploding star?

This is explained. If you really want to know get a cosmology book and you will see lovely pictures of gravity collecting dust and rocks to form a planet.

Even still the theory of evolution, taken as a fact, does not explain the origin of 'something'. Doesn't that leave room for some huge fundamental questions?

Evolution is not abiogenesis. Do you even understand evolution? as if you did then you would know that abiogenesis attempts to anwser the question of the origin of life, not evolution.

Would it not be of interest to the scientific community to know how the conditions and substances got there?

Abiogenesis is a recent field of study.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I would think it would be very important since it would either help support or refute the big bang theory and, in the long run, the development of species.

Seriously, the big bang has nothing to do with biology. They are two seperate fields. Abiogenesis cannot be used to support the big bang.

Right now the theory assumes the conditions and substances were there with no reasonable explanation.

No it doesn't. Again evolution and the big bang have nothing to do with each other. And abiogenesis is a new field so it will take time to get something conclusive. Science is inductive they don't assume anything.

Again it's a theory, not fact.

A sciencitific theory means a body of sciencitifc evidence. A isolated fact is no use to sciencitist, however a scientific theory is.
They also call gravity a theory.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Why is it of no consequence (confusing and irrelevant analogy aside)? Would it not be of interest to the scientific community to know how the conditions and substances got there? I would think it would be very important since it would either help support or refute the big bang theory and, in the long run, the development of species. Right now the theory assumes the conditions and substances were there with no reasonable explanation.

Of course it's highly relevant to the scientific community. The only thing the theory of evolution assumes in this regard is that life exists. The analogy was relevant because the theory of evolution is just as I defined it. A theory of the origin of life is what you're looking for here. The theory of evolution explains a very specific function of the universe. It isn't the theory of everything, it's the theory of evolution.

evolution >noun 1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection.

Originally Posted by GestaltAlteration

Also, evolution aside, isn't the origin of 'everything' of some interest to any scholarly minds? It seems to be overlooked since the 'guess' that everything was in the right order takes precedence.

Is that an unreasonable guess? If we find that life can and has existed for a certain amount of time on Earth, is it unreasonable to guess that life formed on Earth and continues to survive? Especially given that it's known that the conditions for life forming existed on Earth at one point?

I don't know why, but I like to imagine that the universe is like a sine curve. It expands and contracts and repeats, without beginning or end. Just because it's in a state of expansion now doesn't mean it had a beginning. It just means at one point it was smaller. Keep an open mind.

I think the question of how the substance of the universe came into being is a good, honest question that deserves a good answer, but no one has answered it yet, so I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion about it. Most of the other questions(evolution, etc) are about the dynamics of the universe, which have been pretty much figured out, except for black holes and a few other exceptional cosmological phenomena that may or may not conform to theory.

Dynamical questions have answers, but existential questions do not (except in mathematics).

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The smart atheists are also agnostic. I don't know what's out there because I can't comprehend it and I probably never will. I never said it couldn't be your god.
It could be the Flying spaghetti monster, or it could be a flying torpedo... Are you saying there's proof of god? If there is, I'd like to see it.

This is about the definitions of agnostic and atheist.

I will never say 100% that the christian God doesn't exist; in the same way I won't say 100% the dark lord Sauron doesn't exist. Because I can't know it. However it is simply incredibly incredibly unlikely that both exist; to the extent of like 99.99999%.




So I call myself an atheist; similarly, Richard Dawkins has said that he will never say for 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. It's just extremely unlikely. I think that classes as atheism rather than agnosticism.

I couldn't agree more.

Just to crush this thread, the Big Bang Theory states nothign more or less than "the universe is constantly expanding". Not to mention that zero-point energy, being energy coming from nothing, could've created the universe. If my understanding of zero-point energy is not mistaken, that is.