I Can't Take The Big Bang Seriously

originally posted by: ItsNotIronic
The problem may be trying to imagine the big bang from an outside frame of reference.

You should not allow yourself to think outside of that infinitesimal speck and go no further back in time. The instant of the big bang is a brick wall, there is no "before" because time didn't exist.

That's false. Spacetime did exist, it was just compressed into a dense singularity. Time as we measure it did not exist until spacetime began expanding, but that doesn't mean that prior nothing existed. That's complete assumption.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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".

The BBT theory is pointless and invalid...why are they interested in what MAY have happened without the rest of the story.

Sounds like an ant trying to explain how a car is made...and proclaiming that any of its postulations are even remotely true.

This just shows you don't understand BBT. It states that everything was close together and then expanded. What happened prior to that or what caused it is unknown.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: TzarChasm

So, if someone doesn't completely understand the convoluted theories, they shouldn't be able to form an opinion on it and they should never be taken seriously?

Do you see the dangers in that road at all?

Maybe we should look at a few examples:

Vaccines are good for you, because our government says so. There are also a multitude of professionals out there that fully agree there is nothing wrong with injecting mercury straight into the body. You disagree? All you have is a hunch? Sacrilege.

Pharmaceuticals are good for you. Our government says so and fully allows the sale and regulation of these substances. Even fully certified doctors agree. If you disagree, you are just being ignorant.

There have been plenty of people that have questioned main stream science with arguments that are far beyond my understanding but the reactions to these alt theories are interesting. Instead of being debated, they just shut down these alt theories. They call these people crazy, label them and then dismiss them. Convenient.

Didn't Hubble state 2 possibilities for the redshift? We only hear one of them and the alternate theory has been completely buried. Same with Newton, didn't he suspect that gravity is electrical in nature but was convinced to go with this mass theory with the prior almost scrubbed from history?

Once again human nature wins out in the end. When so much of your time is spent in left brain thinking and devoted to endless amounts of time memorizing and regurgitating statics, a new theory that challenges all of that effort will be held to the upmost level of hostility.

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.

the comment you are addressing was an oversimplification of an earlier sentiment I posted, to the effect of "if the mousetrap sucks so badly, then build a better one".

no one here on these forums has built a better mousetrap.

a reply to: strangechristian777 I learned in school (many moons ago) that our planet, sun and solar system were created from the remnants from the aftermath of a super nova. This got me thinking , what if a similar process created our universe ? Not the death of a star, but the demise of something we have no comprehension of, and the aftermath of this event caused the big bang / expansion.

Further thinking on this (slow day in work) ...what if this is a common event ? And our universe is only one in infinite number of universes in an eternal void that has no beginning or end. We would never know as we will never see (with current technology ) outside of our 'universe' the process happening. All we have is what we can discover and relate to from our perspective of the universe we live in, and outside of this remit we are left with nothing but thoughts and ideas to postulate on. Even if they are rambling like mine.

a reply to: MarkOfTheV

It also in no way suggests that it is even the least bit provable, we don’t even know how our own moon got where it is, anyone who claims to tell you they know how the universe got arranged the way it did, is lying to you.

a reply to: 3daysgone

You should read the kybalion

a reply to: Gothmog

I think by definition if it is expanding it can not be infinite,

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Hmm I don’t believe that getting to a point where the consensus is “we don’t know or can’t figure out what happened before that” or “or theory isnt solid enough to know how pain is made, only how to make a picture” possibly might be the wrong path.

a reply to: odzeandennz

The real problem with your arguement is that there are in reality more than just two sides, but I know it helps support certain agendas for people to clump what creationist think into one big group, when in reality they are different and go about the “matter of fact” differently

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.

a reply to: MteWamp

On an infitie scale there is no big or small

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Gothmog

I think by definition if it is expanding it can not be infinite,

expanding into infinity...the infinite part already exists.

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

Me: He always existed.

Then he is one twisted, sadistic, perverted, and worthless God imo.

What kind of so called loving God would allow children to be sex trafficked?

I could go on, but the freewill vs God's will BS will pop up, and circular argumentation, which is invalid reasoning will always arise.

Enjoy the illusion/delusion take your pick. None of us truly know.

a reply to: Realtruth


You have seen nothing yet. Have you read about revelation. It is nothing compared to what you think is the problem today.

Why do you blame God for the things we do? That is like blaming Trumph for the things we do for him.


If you think we can blame our actions on God you dont grasp what this is all about.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Realtruth


You have seen nothing yet. Have you read about revelation. It is nothing compared to what you think is the problem today.

Why do you blame God for the things we do? That is like blaming Trumph for the things we do for him.


If you think we can blame our actions on God you dont grasp what this is all about.

Well, I'm no expert, but it appears to me like we are pawns in a chess simulation being processed for some cosmic jerks amusement. we are more or less toys designed to pass time for an omnipresent child king who thinks letting bad stuff happen is more entertaining than being a good guardian figure. Job is a good example, and we are now a world full of jobs basically trying to die as gracefully as we can, hoping the dungeon master doesn't decide to cause waves to shake things up and watch the rats panic helplessly in his clever little maze. If some texts are to be believed anyway. Not a big fan of that scenario. But this is about the big bang and why it's not very plausible, and how somehow it still hasn't been replaced with a more appropriate model that matches the data and better describes the introduction of the universe. Where is that model again?

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Realtruth


You have seen nothing yet. Have you read about revelation. It is nothing compared to what you think is the problem today.

Why do you blame God for the things we do? That is like blaming Trumph for the things we do for him.


If you think we can blame our actions on God you dont grasp what this is all about.

a reply to: Gothmog

If it already existed then it wasn’t created at the Big Bang, so time couldn’t start at the Big Bang

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.

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

It also in no way suggests that it is even the least bit provable, we don’t even know how our own moon got where it is, anyone who claims to tell you they know how the universe got arranged the way it did, is lying to you.

Actually scientists have a pretty good idea of how the moon got there. A head on planetary collision. Science is probabilities based on evidence. Scientists have observed the formation of solar systems, it's no mystery. They might not know every detail of exactly how our particular solar system got to where it was, but the knowledge is increasing over time

originally posted by: fatkid
a reply to: Gothmog

I think by definition if it is expanding it can not be infinite,

Not necessarily. If our expansion is one of trillions that cyclically expand and then collapse, it still is a possibility.