It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Elementalist
The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.
originally posted by: Elementalist
Darkness creates.
originally posted by: Elementalist
Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.
originally posted by: gravitized
The big bang theory is no longer a theory:
No Big Bang?
originally posted by: paraphi
Therefore, whether we understand the physics, or not, the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point is incontrovertible.
originally posted by: JUhrman
This is another common mistake.
First the "single point" idea is based on the idea of "singularity". The singularity is what happens when you try to reverse time during the expansion. The maths behind this shows that IF you reverse the expansion you hit a point where the formulas don't work anymore. So all the Big Bang theory says in that regard is that, with our current physical models, we hit a wall and can't describe anything BEFORE the expansion.
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: JUhrman
This is another common mistake.
First the "single point" idea is based on the idea of "singularity". The singularity is what happens when you try to reverse time during the expansion. The maths behind this shows that IF you reverse the expansion you hit a point where the formulas don't work anymore. So all the Big Bang theory says in that regard is that, with our current physical models, we hit a wall and can't describe anything BEFORE the expansion.
Common mistake?! Just because the physics behind a singularity is beyond compression (at the moment) and has not been fully explained does not mean that it is not a safe theory.
Also, the Big Bang theory does not provide theory as to "what came before". The theory starts with the start. So, just because the BBT does not include things you think it should, does not compromises it.
originally posted by: JUhrman
You don't get it. I have no issue with the speculation regarding a singularity.
I'm saying the singularity is not a "single point". That a vulgarization to help common people understanding the principle.
originally posted by: paraphi
the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point is incontrovertible.
originally posted by: Elementalist
The big bang theory, a human concept to explain; creation's expansion, how life came to be.
Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.
For those who have digressed to put faith in such a theory, an unknown and spontaneous bang (of what forces?), producing creation, I make this thread for those, to kindly fill in the questions I have about this simple and unexplainable theory.
So let's get crackin' this debate shall we?
The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.
How and Why is nature all of a sudden creating things; and what faculty would nature have that allows it to create miraculously flawless geography, designs, and numerical consistencies?
In human logic, it would take quite a large brain to process all this information/knowledge, especially coming from nothing.
How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale?
Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?
Secondly; how does nothing create everything is ONE side of this debate.The other side is; how did nature (which apparently came from nothing) create things that can think on their own.
Said creations can think about anything and everything. Things that exist and things that don't our brain/mind can create things (mentally) that don't even exist within the universe.
How did nothing give the ability to THINK of anything or everything, just out of prima materia?
Thirdly; why did nature decide to create bodies, that think and feel, but also have TWO counter parts?
If nothing (represented by 0) created everything (represented by 1), why would it then create a counter part (like eve from Adams rib story) for further reproduction of that created body (represented by 1+1=2)?
Now we have to back up again and go for the first point again; how is nature intelligent and creating flawless creations from primal material? Where is the information coming from to create TWO counterparts?
With that in mind, and everything coming from one thing, why would nature not make self replicating bodies like divided itself or something? Simply efficient and conservative, right?
It would seem unnecessary to create counter parts of original creations, nature created, following the big bang theory.
Fourthly; this is the last point I have to bring up for denying the big bang. The fact that nature created bodies that can now think and be self aware and externally aware, they can feel emotions.
The thoughts that the created body has, change how that body feels and goes about its "life". Thoughts, that come only when the body awareness exercises thought, actually changes its emotions and perspective of the external universe it was unwillingly born into.
My main points against the Big Bang theory; how did nature get its program to create flawless designs, mathematics, sciences, chemical reactions, biological systems and the REASON TO CREATE in the first place?
Also how did nature go on to create things that now think for themselves, and feel emotions (where and why did emotions come from?), as well as are self aware creations?
Why did nature create two counter parts that must have one and the other to reproduce? If it was spontaneous with no consciousness (nature's), how did it create two sides that biological, chemically and systemically fit flawlessly together to reproduce? Doesn't seem random.
Seems like a bit much for random nothingness to go out and do all this and now we live self aware experiences for a short time trying to understand why nature did what it did/does.
For those who hold faith of big bang, explain some of these points in your POV please, this is an honest debate to further educate myself how others understand creation and life.
All comments and questions are welcome, don't let emotion lead your partake within this light debate.
Play nice , thanks for reading
The big bang theory, a human concept to explain; creation's expansion, how life came to be.
Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.
For those who have digressed to put faith in such a theory,
an unknown and spontaneous bang (of what forces?), producing creation, I make this thread for those, to kindly fill in the questions I have about this simple and unexplainable theory.
So let's get crackin' this debate shall we?
The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.
How and Why is nature all of a sudden creating things; and what faculty would nature have that allows it to create miraculously flawless geography, designs, and numerical consistencies?
In human logic, it would take quite a large brain to process all this information/knowledge, especially coming from nothing.
How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale?
Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?