I Can't Take The Big Bang Seriously

I don't really buy the BBT 100% either, although I find the subject quite interesting. To me, it just seems like there's WAY too much information that we don't have.

On the other hand, it seems just about as likely an explanation as God "magicing" the Universe out of nothing.

And I actually say that as a Christian. I just believe there's as much we don't know about spiritual matters, as there is about science.

On a cosmic scale, the human race is pretty freakin' small.

originally posted by: strangechristian777
Them: Where did God come from?

Me: He always existed.

Them: That's impossible. God had to come from somewhere. Nothing can always exist.

Me: Where did the material for the big bang come from?

Them: It just always existed.



Mind blowing how people can be so oblivious to what they actually believe.

Why don't you ask the question over on the Science board? Or have you locked out real science?

a reply to: strangechristian777

First your argument is a straw man, and has nothing to do with the validity of the big bang theory. I've never heard a big bang proponent or materialist say that it's impossible for god to always exist. 99.99999% of the time they simply say if god can be eternal without cause and just happen to exist, then so can the universe. The problem is the creationist double standards that use special pleading and appeals to ignorance to justify an unjustifiable position. They assume that the cause of the big bang MUST be a being, but why?

Sorry, but you can't logically use an argument when it also counters your view. Creationists are the ones that constantly say that the universe requires a creator but god does not. It's the typical double standard hypocrisy we see from lying apologetic shills. I can't take apologists or creationism seriously because it's all flat out BS.

a reply to: strangechristian777

Strange how perception is reality, even if it's just an illusion, that's how powerful our minds are.

Science, in a way, is almost like currency. It's only worth as much as the trust we have in it.

"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow..."

originally posted by: strangechristian777
Them: Where did God come from?

Me: He always existed.

Them: That's impossible. God had to come from somewhere. Nothing can always exist.

Me: Where did the material for the big bang come from?

Them: It just always existed.



Mind blowing how people can be so oblivious to what they actually believe.

This is a strawman argument. The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the material that encompassed the Big Bang always existed. It says it doesn't know what occurred before the Big Bang or the state of the material of which the universe came from. You substituting ANY other answer is a lie.

Scientists have guesses, some educated, some are shots in the dark as to what happened before the Big Bang, but there is literally no scientific proof to point to and say, "This is how things worked pre-BB".

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: 3daysgone
Unless the modern theory of an ever expanding universe is considered. Space/Time is created in front of the universe and expanded behind as the expansion continues.(which also accounts for the expansion moving faster than the speed of light)
We may well be living in an ever expanding "sphere".

True. Would entropy play any part in it?

The thermodynamic or descent into chaos and disorder entropy ?
I will cover both , as both are required by the very nature of existence .

Thermodynamic- You have to ask yourself if the dark matter/dark energy is infinite and that is what the universe is expanding into . I.E.creating space as the universe expands .

Disorder - Yes , but as it does decay in entropy , the entropy becomes a normal state

Out there I know...and probably put forward by no one else but me

Entropy is actually about heat energy, not actual chaos/disorder. Creationist like to postulate that it means everything is becoming chaotic, but that's not true in the least. It just essentially says the universe is cooling and will eventually run out of material to keep those thermodynamic processes going.

a reply to: Barcs

The thermodynamic or descent into chaos and disorder entropy ?

Yeah , I believe I noted that.
Also , there is the disorder entropy.
They are related as thermodynamics does have an order to disorder effect built right in.
The chaos disorder is a bit different than thermodynamics' disorder.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The material that the big bang came from doesn't actually exist.
For us to state that anything exists it must exist within spacetime.
Spacetime was created at the big bang so anything prior to that cannot exist.

Not according to the big bang. Spacetime was condensed into a super dense singularity. It wasn't actually created with the big bang, it EXPANDED with the big bang. Big difference. The big bang isn't the creation of everything, it's an expansion. People seem stuck on the idea of an explosion out of nowhere, but that's not what most physicists say. Spacetime and energy were compacted together and then expanded, it says nothing about the creation of spacetime or energy. It is presumed to have already been there, although it's impossible at this point to measure before the big bang.

That's why when you ask a scientist what happened at the big bang or prior the answer is either "physics breaks down when we get to the singular point" or "time started at the big bang so there isn't a before".

It's because we can't study it prior to just after the expansion started. Scientists don't know all of the answers, and that's why we have math theories about it. There are a lot of unknowns involved, but at least we have plausible math theories like membrane theory and other possibilities.

There may be other forms of time that preceded the big bang. And that would mean there are other "things" which preceded the big bang.

Time as we know it and perceive it, is an illusion. It is created by the expansion of spacetime and gravity warping the spacetime around objects with high mass. Time is relative.

originally posted by: Psilocyborg
"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow..."

Geocentrism and flat earth were NEVER scientific positions. They were guesses based on the church and ignorance, and plenty of people didn't even believe that. It was a common myth that people in the middle ages believed the earth was flat. Nobody ever "knew" that, they guessed at it. Modern science is testable and peer reviewed. You can't compare it to the musings of ancient man that knew pretty much nothing about the world thousands of years ago.

a reply to: Barcs

Fyi, That's a quote from the movie Men in Black.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Barcs

Fyi, That's a quote from the movie Men in Black.

Ah, I was wondering where that was from! I should have realized haha.

originally posted by: amazing
Nice OP. The Big Bang Theory only makes sense if there is something to proceed it. Otherwise it is just an event.

like the hand of god?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Barcs

The thermodynamic or descent into chaos and disorder entropy ?

Yeah , I believe I noted that.
Also , there is the disorder entropy.
They are related as thermodynamics does have an order to disorder effect built right in.
The chaos disorder is a bit different than thermodynamics' disorder.

Are you talking about quantum entropy (von Neumann)? Any info you can give me on this would be greatly appreciated. How does one actually define chaos/disorder in that version? I've never thought the universe was very ordered to begin with, I've always seen it as gravity giving the appearance of order.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

&

a reply to: ManFromEurope

The good old "you just don't understand what a scientific theory is" argument.

Why isn't the Big Bang considered scientific fact?

How can something be created from nothing. At some point in time there was a nothing and then how did something happen? It's a question too perplexed that our tiny little brains would not be able to comprehend.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
How can something be created from nothing. At some point in time there was a nothing and then how did something happen? It's a question too perplexed that our tiny little brains would not be able to comprehend.

The Big Bang Theory does not exclude the idea that there was always "something". Some mainstream science ideas include that maybe "existence" (whatever it is that contains our universe) is eternal.

The Big Bang Theory does not say that the universe came from nothing. The BBT only explains how the universe we see today expanded from a hyper-dense state into what we have today.

What was before that/where did the hyperdense thing come from? Physicists have hypotheses, but it isn't necessarily "everything came from nothingness".

originally posted by: acackohfcc

originally posted by: amazing
Nice OP. The Big Bang Theory only makes sense if there is something to proceed it. Otherwise it is just an event.

like the hand of god?

Sure. Or multiple Universes or I have no idea, but give me something. Don't just say that everything in the universe exploded form a tiny single point, because there is no sense in that and then leave it at that. That makes absolutely no sense.

originally posted by: Incandescent
a reply to: ignorant_ape

&

a reply to: ManFromEurope

The good old "you just don't understand what a scientific theory is" argument.

Why isn't the Big Bang considered scientific fact?

To be fair, you don't understand it.

www.livescience.com...

A theory in science is a compilation of testable facts and experiments. Saying it's not a fact, is a bit silly when it is composed of numerous facts. Theories are better than facts in science. Theories don't suddenly turn into facts or laws when proved. Theories aren't made without substantial evidence to support it in the first place.

Germs are just a theory, do you use that excuse to deny their existence as well?

originally posted by: strangechristian777
Them: Where did God come from?

Me: He always existed.

Them: That's impossible. God had to come from somewhere. Nothing can always exist.

Me: Where did the material for the big bang come from?

Them: It just always existed.



Mind blowing how people can be so oblivious to what they actually believe.

So the infinite dont exist to you. Then it is odd that we exist today.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: ClovenSky
Just wait until they admit (they probably know already) that our cosmos isn't expanding at all, but is in perfect stasis. It will be even more fun when that equilibrium is admitted to be how our entire solar system works and that it has nothing to do with an invisible man/woman in the sky.

We are still infants in our knowledge but believe ourselves to be all knowing gods.

No.
That would contradict several very basic observations of the universe.
It won't happen because of some youtube video or such.

Time will tell I guess. No youtubes? Then you will probably question these sources as well:

Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding
Particles' changing masses could explain why distant galaxies appear to be rushing away.

www.nature.com...

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

electric-cosmos.org...

So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.

But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.

The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.

Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.

www.sci-news.com...




Oh wait, what? The earth is still flat and to question that is heresy? Got it.