The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

Big Bang theory posits that the precursor to the bang was a physical singularity which necessarily contained all the mass and energy in our universe, plus their rules of interaction (the laws of physics).

It is impossible to define a "physical singularity" in terms of any known physics or mathematical principles. Dr. Caca does not mention this on TV documentaries. He simply uses the term, "singularity," as if it means something. What does it mean?

We know how to define a mathematical singularity-- any finite number divided by zero, or the tangent of 90 degrees. But what does "physical singularity" mean? It means nothing-- except that those who hypothesize such a thing have no idea what they are talking about.

Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question. Why, when perfessers invent a "singularity" do they get to describe it on TV and in pop-sci magazines as if it was somehow real?

By contrast, consider the predominant God-concept. God is an omnipotent, omniscient entity-- unchanging, infinite, existing forever, then suddenly choosing to create a universe. According to this belief, God is not an entity who might have thought about how to create a universe. How could he, since he always knew how to create a universe?

Like the "singularity," God always contained the information needed to create the universe, as well as the power to effect its accomplishment. Thus, God and the "singularity" are effectively identical. Bringing this idea down to current beliefs, creation by an omnipotent God is no different from creation via a Big Bang.

Omitted from each concept is the cause. What caused an entity that has always existed to change its status? For religionists this question boils down to, "Why did God, after existing for an infinitely long duration, suddenly decide to disrupt his way of being and create a universe, then make matters worse by creating mankind?

For atheists the question is simpler. What caused the "singularity" to blow up?

If you are intelligent enough to examine these ideas about the beginnings outside the box of your current beliefs, your comments are welcome. Those who cannot think outside of their box are invited to return to a thread that reflects their box.

Originally posted by Greylorn
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Rather interesting assertion.
Would you care to back it up with references?


And the rest of the post, it reads like:
1. Questions, questions. hard to imagine, how can this be? why?
2. Therefore
3. God

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Greylorn
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Rather interesting assertion.
Would you care to back it up with references?


And the rest of the post, it reads like:
1. Questions, questions. hard to imagine, how can this be? why?
2. Therefore
3. God

Very similar to the atheist version!

1. Questions, questions. Hard to imagine, how can this be? why?
2. Therefore
3. Anything but God.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Greylorn
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Rather interesting assertion.
Would you care to back it up with references?


And the rest of the post, it reads like:
1. Questions, questions. hard to imagine, how can this be? why?
2. Therefore
3. God

Why would he need references? The big bang theory is a best guess, the same as creation theory. It's a sound comparison.

Originally posted by Helious
Why would he need references? The big bang theory ....

In the exact same way that somebody supporting the big bang theory needs references, somebody suppoorting the opposite point of view needs references if they make a very specific assertion:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Dissapointing to see that 3 out of 3 creationists dont feel the need to provide any references for that claim.

I've got a better theory, I got it from looking around. It appears we are amongst a bunch of stars and planets. They are up in the sky, where they belong. I am down here where I should be. It doesn't really matter how the universe was formed and we do not have the technology to even form a feasible theory. That is my theory..

Or did I just state a bunch of facts

The difference is that science doesn't necessarily 'believe' in the Big Bang Theory, but accepts it as the strongest theory, whilst religion relies on belief in order to survive.

Unless of course you prescribe to the idea of M-Theory....which is the best explanation at the moment (IMO) for what was before and created the singularity. If the singularity was the result of 2 adjacent branes colliding, then it's like a 2 dimensional flat-lander suddenly seeing a dot appear as a 3 dimensional object intersected with their plane of existence. The 3D object existed before but was unknown/seen by those trapped in a 2D plane of existence.

Branes Collision -> Big Bang

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion of spacetime while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse.

Wikipedia: Ekpyrotic universe

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Helious
Why would he need references? The big bang theory ....

In the exact same way that somebody supporting the big bang theory needs references, somebody suppoorting the opposite point of view needs references if they make a very specific assertion:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Dissapointing to see that 3 out of 3 creationists dont feel the need to provide any references for that claim.

I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang. You can reference people who claim that, that is what must have happened all day long, I can reference you just as many people who will swear that they have a creator.

As far as factual evidence goes, both theories carry the same merit. I have heard some of the best scientific minds on Earth speculate that our reality is nothing more than information coded within the spirling event horizon of a black hole and that we are actually living in a hologram of 3 dimensional reality.

I have heard of far stranger theories, even main stream. You see, I hate to knock science because I love it and find it one of the most useful tools that we as humans have to continue to evolve as a species and also credit it from plucking us from the dark ages but with that said, it's imperfect and those that live by every 1 and 0 often miss the bigger picture that is there to see.

Big bang, creation theory, they are the same only to different people. Both require a gigantic leap of faith into an area where there is no hard evidence and a realm where fundamental answers about the construct we call reality are completely out of our reach.

reply to post by Greylorn


I agree that the Big Bang poses more questions than it answers, and the god theory has so many holes in it as to render it ridiculous.

I might change my mind tomorrow, but having just watched Joe Rogan's Question Everything on Do You Want to Live Forever, one of the last people he talked with (from Nasa - can't remember his name) said that we are most likely a computer simulation.

When I look at the world with Muslims killing people and throwing temper tantrums over things like a cartoon, the Fukishima Nuclear Plant spewing radiation into the ocean, the explosion of rape popularity in India... I have to say that this life just isn't real. It makes no sense for crap like this to be happening in the 21st century.

This life is a whacky game created by intelligent, yet perfectly imperfect entities.

I believe this simulation is probably as popular to those entities as some of the video games are to us. The rich of that other reality probably get the best avatars (one of us), while the not so rich get stuck with avatars with limited minds and even less potential.

Maybe I'm just tired because right now this is making a lot of sense to me.

Originally posted by Helious
I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang. You can reference people who claim that, that is what must have happened all day long,

And in exactly the same way, if a proponent of the big bang theory makes a specific but farfetched claim, you would be completely justified in asking for references to back up that claim.

But I'm not talking about the big bang. I'm specifically referring to the claim that:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Given that the ATS terms and conditions have:

You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

...then it would be dissapointing to find that he simply pulled that claim out of his arse to bolster his argument.

reply to post by Krakatoa


Is the ekpyrotic model the same one that suggested there were about 14 dimensions? It seemed to explain gravity pretty well, and also had an explanation for how it started but it was far too complicated for me.

For atheists the question is simpler. What caused the "singularity" to blow up?

As the other poster stated brane theory explains it quite nicely- multiple universes collided and that caused a big bang.

And yes there is evidence for the big bang. Background radiation and extrapolation backwards from the current expansion of the universe.

I thought everyone in America knew this stuff by now?

reply to post by twfau


No, only 11 dimensions are required (so far) for this theory.

What is the Ekpyrotic proposal?
The building blocks of the ekpyrotic theory are derived from superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid-1990's, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that, under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval.

Cautionary note: As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that inflationary theory is based on quantum field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for twenty years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.

A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Helious
I disagree. There is zero evidence of a big bang. You can reference people who claim that, that is what must have happened all day long,

And in exactly the same way, if a proponent of the big bang theory makes a specific but farfetched claim, you would be completely justified in asking for references to back up that claim.

But I'm not talking about the big bang. I'm specifically referring to the claim that:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.

Given that the ATS terms and conditions have:

You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

...then it would be dissapointing to find that he simply pulled that claim out of his arse to bolster his argument.

Your playing a game of semantics. I'll bite and offer you this as the reference. The Holy Bible Seeing as it is the number one selling and read book of all time and has more believers than the big bang theory, I'm sure you will site this as a reasonable reference and source.

reply to post by Helious

Please post the exact location in The Bible that states that "Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.". I think that is the claim under scrutiny here....not any biblical reference.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
reply to post by Helious

 

Please post the exact location in The Bible that states that "Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question.". I think that is the claim under scrutiny here....not any biblical reference.

I believe Genesis 1:1 covers that.

Originally posted by Helious
I'll bite and offer you this as the reference. The Holy Bible

Although I have read large parts of the bible, I must admit I have not read all of it, so you're going to have to tell me the specific verse that backs up the claim of:
Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question

To be fair the Bible has had 2,000 years to gain that popularity and has been helped by an oppressive church that has indoctrinated and dominated western societies during that time.

reply to post by Helious


Please post the 1:1 verse, as I am not an expert nor have a Bible at hand. I would like to see the statement, not an interpretation of the statement. Unless of course you did just make up that claim....