I Can't Take The Big Bang Seriously

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Barcs

I think this is a circular arguement, both sides have either self-centered double standards or just fail to offer complete timelines.

It's not so much circular as it is special pleading and appeals to ignorance. The only fact here is that we don't know what came prior to the big bang, so all bets are on the table. Anything is possible because we don't know the big picture yet. To break the cycle of causality one would technically need something eternal or outside of spacetime. This is why when theists assume this eternal component MUST be god, they fail to use logic, because it could simply be energy, or it could exist in a cycle. There is too much we don't know to go assuming it's an all powerful creator, let alone using that as an argument to suggest god exists.

originally posted by: Makoroto
Both concepts are very similar, but the existence of a god type is a more plausible one, and yet Big Bang can easily be part of the god concept, while Big Bang cannot exist without god. Mainly because of how universe and life have been created (evolved), how intricate and purposeful it all is. Logically, and statistically, intricacy and purposefulness do not come out of randomness, not at the level of complexity in which the universe exists.

That's complete assumption. God is not any more probable than any other explanation, you just believe it so you want it to be. Saying the big bang cannot exist without god is ridiculous, you don't know that. There is no logic whatsoever in your guess about purpose.

a reply to: ParasuvO

I'm a scientist, I know where the data is, its not burred. They don't cause "untold damage", every single vaccine given, comes with a list of potential side-effects.

In theory couldn't we just create (eventually) a telescope that could see far enough to see the beginning?

originally posted by: Kalizmostwanted
In theory couldn't we just create (eventually) a telescope that could see far enough to see the beginning?

The one problem is that it's not about us being able to see far, It's about being able to see beyond what is there. Basically light has to have enough time to reach us, so there will be a natural barrier at some point. This is why it's currently impossible to measure further back than the big bang. Maybe we will one day learn new methods to learn about what comes prior, but right now, it's just not possible to trace anything back prior to that point when it all began expanding. Maybe once they perfect wormhole technology in 10,000 years or so

originally posted by: Makoroto
Both concepts are very similar, but the existence of a god type is a more plausible one, and yet Big Bang can easily be part of the god concept, while Big Bang cannot exist without god. Mainly because of how universe and life have been created (evolved), how intricate and purposeful it all is. Logically, and statistically, intricacy and purposefulness do not come out of randomness, not at the level of complexity in which the universe exists.

The universe created by the big bang (or some other big bang-type event that may have created a different universe) could have very different physical properties than our universe and still potentially could have led to intelligent life.

That universe could be just as intricate as ours, but also very different. However, it could also have intelligent beings in it wondering if their intricate universe has a purpose.

There could be many (infinite?) random combinations of physical properties that lead to different universes with intelligent beings who are able to wonder about their existence.

a reply to: ClovenSky

I have encountered comments that our current physics and mathematics are almost completely theoretical. The majority can't even be expressed or compared to reality. The symbols used in these equations can never be real or tied to anything in reality. Just like our view of the cosmos. We have to constantly create new non-observable theories to explain mainstream ideas. Like, quarks, blackholes, the big bang and many many other things. Just like math, when you divorce it from reality, the sky is the limit. With our modern understanding of physics and the cosmos, it is no wonder we are constantly confused.

You need to think outside the box a little. You're posting on a computer using a program that calculates in 0s and 1s, commonly called binary code - so there's your mathematics in action. A computer processor (CPU) is a series of specialized circuits and logic gates - and that's your physics in action. Both very real.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that someone else doesn't understand it. The symbols used in mathematical equations are just part of the language. You learn Chinese, you write in their symbols. You learn mathematics, you write in that languages' symbols. Learn the language and it won't be a mystery.

It might be worthwhile to learn where the term "Big Bang" came from and the many misconceptions surrounding the theory.



Big Bang: the etymology of a name
Helge Kragh
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 54, Issue 2, 1 April 2013, Pages 2.28–2.30, doi.org...
Published: 01 April 2013

academic.oup.com...

It is worth looking at the etymology of scientific names and phrases that catch on, because they influence how scientists and the public at large think about Nature. “Relativity theory” – a name for which Einstein was not responsible – may allude to relativism (“everything is relative”) in the same way that “big bang” alludes metaphorically to an explosive and noisy event at the beginning of time. Both convey unfortunate pictures, but it is difficult to find substitutes that are both apt and more appropriate. A detailed study of the history of the name Big Bang reveals misunderstandings in the popular and scholarly histories of modern cosmology. For example, the epic cosmological debate in the period 1948–1965 is usually described as a fight between two rival world systems, the Big Bang theory and the Steady State alternative. This is to a large extent a misrepresentation in both a terminological and factual sense. It is “well known” that Hoyle coined the term “big bang” in a pejorative sense, to make fun of the idea of an exploding universe, but what is well known is not necessarily correct. It is also generally assumed that the name was adopted by the cosmologists at an early stage and widely used in the controversy. This was not the case. It took more than two decades until Hoyle's phrase became common in the scientific literature.


Many people feel that “big bang” is an unfortunate name, not only because of its association with a primordial explosion, but also because it is such an undignified label for the most momentous event ever in the history of the universe. When Sky and Telescope ran a competition in 1993 to find a more suitable name, the judges received no less than 13 099 responses. None of them were found worthy of supplanting Hoyle's “inappropriately bellicose” name (Beatty and Fienberg 1994). It had stuck – like a harpoon.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Think the Great Expansion (There was no explosion to call it a Big Bang)
Now , with that in mind , read Genesis 1 from the start
Substitute Heaven and Earth for the primordial particles that formed the "singularity" . And substitute the darkness to the empty space/time fabric.

"Let there be light" . And the Great Expansion began.

Just sayin

If no one was around to hear it, did it make a sound?

We are far too small to comprehend or explain the creation of the universe.

I believe no biological entities could.

originally posted by: Jefferton
Ohhhhh this is just more one sided nonsense. Awesome.

You gots another side?

What is it?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: strangechristian777

The big bang was made by a priest.


It has nothing to do with God.

Your extremely above your head from Aquinas to Einstein.

Do some reading.

So why doesn't science just make another universe if it's so easily explained?

Don't they want to crush the religion myths?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gothmog
Think the Great Expansion (There was no explosion to call it a Big Bang)
Now , with that in mind , read Genesis 1 from the start
Substitute Heaven and Earth for the primordial particles that formed the "singularity" . And substitute the darkness to the empty space/time fabric.

"Let there be light" . And the Great Expansion began.

Just sayin

If no one was around to hear it, did it make a sound?

We are far too small to comprehend or explain the creation of the universe.

I believe no biological entities could.

You can go with the alien style from the "Alien Interview" . And infinite universes exist w/o start or end. They just exist.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gothmog
Think the Great Expansion (There was no explosion to call it a Big Bang)
Now , with that in mind , read Genesis 1 from the start
Substitute Heaven and Earth for the primordial particles that formed the "singularity" . And substitute the darkness to the empty space/time fabric.

"Let there be light" . And the Great Expansion began.

Just sayin

If no one was around to hear it, did it make a sound?

We are far too small to comprehend or explain the creation of the universe.

I believe no biological entities could.

No. But the vibrational waves were there. But no receiver to "hear" them.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

They have. Look it up.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: 3daysgone

You should read the kybalion

Thank you. I think it would make a great read.

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: strangechristian777

Yeah, me either.

Here it is... 'First there's nothing...then it exploded'...

LOL! What a load a monkey nuts.

First, there was no 'first'.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time, so there wasn't even a 'before' the Big Bang. For there to be a 'first' there has to be time in order to have the concept of sequence. The Big Bang IS precisely the beginning of time.

I know that is hard to get your head around, but so is how a transistor works, and your typing posts is just one proof that the transistor works quite well.

Second, the Big Bang was NOT an explosion. "The Big Bang" is just an evocative label for the beginning of Space/Time. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it the "Big Expansion".

originally posted by: Kalizmostwanted
In theory couldn't we just create (eventually) a telescope that could see far enough to see the beginning?

No. The cosmic radiation background is as close as we will ever get to the BB. Before that there was no radiation.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gothmog

Which means the infinite universe is actually infinite.
We may well be living in an ever expanding "sphere".

Still can't wrap my brain around how something infinite in size can expand.

Thats the easy part really because it expands one can never be at the edge. You can never reach it you can never see it it is truly infinite. Everywhere In the universe space is being created no matter where you sit you see the same thing galaxy's traveling away at greater and greater speeds.

One day this expansion will make it so the only galaxy we see will be ours as the others will be to far away for the light to ever reach us. Imagine if a civilization pops up then to them the milky way would be the entire universe. And they would be wondering what's outside of that.

PS the big bang doesn't explain how the universe was created. It simply explains the expansion of the universe. The energy needed and where it came from is a mystery. We have an idea thanks to physics because we discovered particles that pop in and out of existence we know they are there. And have some idea as to why what we don't know is what created the imbalance necessary if this hypothesis is correct.

Your logic is a bit flawed. For something to create something else it has to exist. If it exists it has to be created some how. If it was created it can't have all ways existed.

Your argument would just lead to the conclusion that the universe all ways existed and the big bang was just one of many that occurs. There's no need to interject god at all in your argument since if the universe all ways existed then there was not a creator.

This argument is just as valid as yours and doesn't require magical beings.

a reply to: dragonridr


I dont know if i can fallow you here.

Are you stating that Our universe always existed?

The infinite must be a absolute void of space. Only a void of Space that is absolut can be infinite, and it must be a absolut constant. If anything is not absolute like Our universe it must have been formed/created.
A void of Space that is infnite and absolute is also absolute neutral/constant. That means there are no randomness possible in such a void of Space.
That means Our magical being must be present to create the changes........ Like forming the Properties that is now Our universe. EDIT: Our magical being is the absolut infinite void of Space. What ever Properties the infinite create is a finite. A property that will always change untill it becomes infinite.......the void of Space it used to be before it was formed (infinite).

There is no way you can argue against this.