The Big Bang

[Kat22]

This is a new thread in order to respect the founder of the Salvation thread I was just in.

 

Topic: The Big Bang.

 

Well, it looks like I should probably expand on my comments about the "Big Bang", since I am obviously getting a lot of flack. How 'bout I just skip my own interpretation and go straight to a clip, provided by NASA, from Harvard... (Make sure to turn on your speakers)

 

hmm... maybe we should listen to that again... what should we call it? My intelligence has been insulted because I called it an "explosion"... but this Harvard rendition is not really a BANG either, is it? So, what about... a Big BOOM... or a Big BLAST... I don't know, it still sounds like an explosion to me.

 

Ok, enough making fun of a theatrical little noise. Now, let's see what this article says about this beginning...

 

Just before the Big Bang.

 

No one knows what the universe was like at this time. Best current theory: the "inflationary universe" model assumes that all of space is filled with an extremely concentrated, unstable form of energy that will be transformed into particles of matter at the instant of the Big Bang. But no one knows how space and time came into existence in the first place.

 

Now, Han. I have you quoted as saying

The Big Bang came from a hot and dense singularity that could have existed for eternity as far as we know. We can't estimate it's age, because "age" and "time" is dependent on the space/time fabric which came into structure when the Big Bang occurred. We have to talk about hypertime to explain what the age of this singularity is, and we step outside of our understanding of time. But it was not "non-existent" before the Big bang, it just wasn't part of OUR time.

 

Well, for me as a Christian, the answer to where all this "stuff" came from is that God made it. As a Christian, that works for me. I am comfortable with that. Yeah, I know you guys think that's hilarious. So, yes, I come into this with a presupposition. However, I assume many of you come with a presupposition that there is no Christian God; so at least that's on the table.

 

If "age" and "time" is dependent on the space/time fabric which came into structure when the Big Bang occurred" then wouldn't there have to be something that exists beyond the realm of space and time in order to create it?

 

Based on what I have gathered thus far, this forum is supported by those who do not believe that which cannot be supported by fact. So, how is this theory proven by fact? Now, I am very interested in hearing this because I was under the impression that science is proven, through measurements and calculations, which I thought would be based on space and time. Now, obviously I am not a science major. Can you explain this in layman's terms.

 

Instant of the Big Bang.

 

Particles burst into existence. (OH! THAT'S what it is! It's not an EXPLOSION, it's a BURST. Sorry, my bad. ) No one yet knows how this process takes place. From these particles will arise all the matter from which we and the universe around us are made. The matter and energy are so densely packed that 1 teaspoonful of space contains 100 million trillion trillion trillion pounds. We don't know what the larger universe is like very far beyond this small chunk.

 

Scale of window: 1 inch across.

 

Weight in this volume: 10 billion trillion trillion trillion pounds.

 

Did you know that, in response to the question "Where did the material come from for this 'Big Bang'?", scientists are now entertaining the notion that there are other dimensions! This is commonly called the M-Theory, which is an expansion of the String-Theory. They admit there is no evidence for this String Theory), that is the building block for "Mr. M", yet they are willing to believe it anyway. Nothing but an unfinished mathematical theory. NO evidence. None. Yet they believe it.

 

Now, why is it more logical to say there is no possibility of a Biblical God because you see no proof? Yet, for some strange reason, believe in a Big Bang when scientists willingly admit to the very same thing we are accused of. Having no actual evidence.

 

Why exactly can they entertain that there are dimensions, they do not understand, where our universe originated from? However, not even taking into consideration the BIBLICAL God, they can't even entertain the idea that maybe there is (at the very least) an intelligent being, in one of those dimensions, that brought forth this universe?

[mwc]

Why exactly can they entertain that there are dimensions, they do not understand, where our universe originated from? However, not even taking into consideration the BIBLICAL God, they can't even entertain the idea that maybe there is (at the very least) an intelligent being, in one of those dimensions, that brought forth this universe?

Show a "god" scientifically (in this case mathematically) in a reproducible fashion and people WILL listen to you. Since this, to date, has not been done then the items that you state that are entertained (ie. alternate dimensions) are done so for the very reason I have offered to you.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

I'll stay out of the specific discussion about the origins of the universe. Because it makes my head hurt just thinking about it. And I know others here are much more erudite on the subject.

 

But if Kat can just tell me where god came from, I'll be okay.

 

Because "He has always existed"

 

Is not an answer.

 

At least, not an answer that carries any credibility.

 

Except among those who live in the world of "faith".

[Dave]

......Why exactly can they entertain that there are dimensions, they do not understand, where our universe originated from? However, not even taking into consideration the BIBLICAL God, they can't even entertain the idea that maybe there is (at the very least) an intelligent being, in one of those dimensions, that brought forth this universe?

 

Strawmen aside... why invent an intelligent being and give it credit for creating anything?

[Thurisaz]

Now, why is it more logical to say there is no possibility of a Biblical God because you see no proof?

 

Our rejection of your gawd doesn't rest just upon no evidence available supporting said existence. Your gawd is logically impossible even without any theory of cosmic origins.

 

It can easily be debated (and indeed not proven either way) whether there is some deity (or deities) out there... but even so, it couldn't possibly be yours.

[Dhampir]

So... What you're saying is that scientists have formed hypotheses, and because the questions they raise are unanswerable, and for that matter, un-explorable for the time being, that means god, which as an answer can never be explored, nor can the myriad questions it raises, MUST be the answer?

[Ouroboros]

Kat22,

 

Before I dive into details about the Big Bang, I have to ask you, there are Christians (I was one of them) that believe that Big Bang is the way God created the Universe. Are they wrong in that belief? "Let there be light" in your mind can not be equated to the light event at the point of about 150,000 years after the first quantum fluctuation? In a Biblical and Theological way it is actually beautiful to think of God as the creator of the Universe using a big bang as the start of the Universe, but hey, since it doesn't make sense to you, it can't be true, right? Or can God do anything he wants? Is it possible that science can see the traces of HOW God created the universe and the world, or do you think that scientists make up things and then create their evidence and then millions of scientists lie deliberately all over the world only to fool the silly Christians?

 

Can you give me some answers to this before we continue, please?

[white_raven23]

Reality check.

 

Kat22 thinks the purpose of the moon is to shield the earth from meteors. She is not even minutely capable of comprehending any real science or the explanation of it. She's going to be one of those people who thinks: "if the explanation is complicated, then it can't be true, because the truth is simple."

 

Am I making assumptions about you Kat22? One's you want to claim aren't true?

 

I don't give a FUCK.

 

Your absence of common sense knowledge and basic 7th grade science comprehension actually offends me.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the BEST proof you have for me, that miracles are real, is that someone like YOU is even capable of using a computer.

[HuaiDan]

Comprehending spacetime beyond the 4 dimensions we are perceptually aware of really helps in understanding the Big Bang. And Big Bang is just a name, chosen more for its irreverent aesthetic than for its descriptive ability. At the time of the Big Bang and for sometime thereafter, the laws of physics were completely different than they are now, so phenomena such as sound didn't exist as we know it, or would have to be given a completely new definition to apply.

[crazy-tiger]

I was right... it was worth the laugh.

 

 

Kat22, I think you should try learning what BBT actually says and covers.

 

Does it cover what happened prior to the Big Bang? No. Does it cover any of the possible reasons why the Big Bang happened? No. It simply covers the Big Bang itself...

 

 

As for refusing to allow the possibility of the Biblical God in the equation, there's one very simple reason for that, and it's the same reason they don't allow the possibility of any God... BBT answers certain questions. What happened, How it happened, When it happened, Why it happened. Gods don't answer those... Gods simply answer Who made it happen. Until such time as those trying to push Gods into the equation can tell us What God did, How God did it, When God did it and Why God did it, God has no place to fit, and is left in a corner while things are put together.

 

Now, you can try to answer those questions... and you probably will. But, there's a problem with answering them.

 

What did God do? He created the Universe... no problem there, but the What part is the easy part.

How did God do it? *silence*

When did God create it? According to the Bible no-one knows so there's no answer.

Why did God do it? Because he wanted to. But why did he want to? *silence*

 

 

See the problem? God doesn't answer any of the hard questions... it just stops you from having to ask them. Well, I'm sorry, but we're going to keep asking those questions until we get answers. Why? Because we're not happy with a non-answer. We want to know How, we want to know When, we want to know What, we want to know Why...

 

God is a way for you to remain ignorant... and that's something we aren't happy being.

[Ouroboros]

Kat22,

 

Waiting for your answer why God can't use a Big Bang to create a universe...

 

But meanwhile, I want to tell you a very odd thing about the Big Bang theory, for most scientists the theory and the order of the universe isn't at odds at all. Actually the Big Bang was a rapid expansion, and the thought of everything being ordered isn't difficult at all, but problem most scientists have with Big Bang (yes, they do have questions that are not answered) is the non-ordererd things. They expect the Universe to be fully ordered from the Big Bang, but it isn't. The background radiation was supposed to be uniform, but it isn't, and why is that? I think they don't have a good answer for that yet. But I do know there's a Christian apologist that use THAT as a proof that the Universe was Created. Funny, isn't it. You claim the universe is so ordered and it can't be from a Big Bang so God must have created it, while some Christian scientists claims that God created the Universe because there are NON-ordered things in it and Big Bang should haver resulted in order. So which way is it? God exists and the proof is that the universe is ordered and not-ordered? What else is there? God exists because the Universe exists is basically the end point, and it's moot. Non sequitor.

 

You see physics show that there is order, but also chaos in the universe. Most of it is deterministic, but some of it is probabilistic but yet not fully contingent. Look into quantum mechanics, and ask yourself how quantum tunneling works and what controls it. If you don't know the answer to that, how can you expect to have an answer to the why and how of the first quantum tunneling just at the planck's time of BB?

[BlueGiant]

Yawn.

 

First, It isn't a presupposition if it can be proved that your god is self-contradictory, and could not exist. I'd also like to point out that that has been proven. Don't worry, though. You can borrow one of my gods. *grin*

 

Origin of the universe and cosmological theories are an area of current research. As it stands, there are experiments that can be done, in theory, to differentiate between different models of the universe, but cannot be done at this time due to them needing better technology (more precise measurements to be exact). From your post above, you seem to already consider yourself an expert, and yet, it is clear from your rambling diatribe that you actually know jack shit about he whole thing. Then again, I should expect that from someone with your sort of mental handicap. It is apparent that like a parrot, you can imitate, but you don't learn.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Now, why is it more logical to say there is no possibility of a Biblical God because you see no proof? Yet, for some strange reason, believe in a Big Bang when scientists willingly admit to the very same thing we are accused of. Having no actual evidence.

 

Because "God" is the anthropomorphization of the forces of the universe that ancient man did not understand and so feared and tried to explain in the simplest way they knew; they invented a powerful person(s) that had control of everything.

 

Scientists today are able to demonstrate many of these forces and their sources mathematically. They don't have all the answers now and they never will. There's no way for us to see beyond the beginning of our "time". The evidence they need to believe is the fact that they can explain those forces without any god. Their equations point them in the right direction for their conclusions. Why add a god to it when it isn't required and just complicates the matter even further?

[Brother Jeff]

 

Hi Kat,

 

You failed to respond to my post in the "Salvation" thread. It would be nice if you would do so, but then I'm used to fundies ignoring questions that they don't like and/or can't answer.

 

It's obvious from your posts that you have an unfortunately typically very poor understanding of what science is and how science works. That really isn't surprising given Christianity's strongly anti-science and anti-intellectual nature. There is an excellent discussion of the origins of the universe in David Mill's excellent book "Atheist Universe". This quote from pages 74-75 seems relevant to this discussion:

 

"If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and if the universe is entirely composed of mass-energy, then the law of the conservation of mass-energy may be extrapolated to this startling conclusion: the universe, in one form or another, in one density or another, always existed. There was never a time when the mass-energy comprising our universe did not exist, if only in the form of an empty oscillating vacuum or an infinitely dense theoretical point called a singularity, consisting of no volume whatsoever.

 

At the Big Bang, the universe was incredibly dense and unimaginably hot. The elementary particles, which now constitute the chemical elements could not exist under such extreme conditions. Immediately following the Big Bang, therefore, the rapidly expanding universe is believed to have been composed solely of energy, with matter condensing later, after further expansion allowed for cooler temperatures. Regardless of its form, however, the universe - which is the sum of all mass-energy - could not, according to the mass-energy conservation law, come into existence ex nihilo in the way demanded by creationism. According to this well-confirmed scientific principle, our universe of mass-energy was never created, and cannot be annihilated. To believe in "scientific" creationism, therefore, is to overlook or dismiss the law of the conservation of mass-energy. If creationists possess empirical evidence to contradict the law of the conservation of mass-energy, let them share such information with the general scientific community. Otherwise, the fundamental doctrine of creationism - that the universe was created by God out of literally and absolutely nothing - must be recognized as theological rather than scientific. The term "Creation science" is therefore a self-contained contradiction in terms."

 

The context of the quote is a preceding discussion of the Conservation of Mass-Energy and a following section discussing objections to the above quoted extrapolation of the Law of the Conservation of Mass-Energy. I highly recommend this glorious book to both you and my fellow freethinkers. Glory!

[Antlerman]

If "age" and "time" is dependent on the space/time fabric which came into structure when the Big Bang occurred" then wouldn't there have to be something that exists beyond the realm of space and time in order to create it?

Scratch out the last five words, then yes, it’s possible, but not necessary, that there is "something" that exist outside our observable universe. Not that any of that necessarily would have to have had to have anything to do in the creation of what we observe within this universe. It could have been a strickly internal thing, for all anyone knows.

 

We simply don’t know. To claim we can know would be rather presumptuous, and a tad bit arrogant wouldn’t you agree? Any scientist who would claim to know, would sound more like a religious priest who actually does claim to know!

 

Based on what I have gathered thus far, this forum is supported by those who do not believe that which cannot be supported by fact. So, how is this theory proven by fact?

First of all Kat, it’s not “proven” by fact. It’s ”supported” by fact. A huge difference.

 

You do not understand science. Do you know what the difference between an hypothesis and a theory are in science Kat? Could you explain the scientific method to me? I really honestly like to hear you show you have a basic understanding of the scientific method. Because if you don’t, then the question you ask above will be answered once you do.

 

Here. Here’s a brief primer course to help you understand the use of the word “Theory” in science, and how NOTHING is ever proven. It’s an open ended discipline: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/.../AppendixE.html

 

Secondly, it's not so much that someone can't believe something without hard fact. People do that all the time. But it's more a matter of believing fantastical things without fantastic evidence! It's like Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Wouldn't you ask for proof if I told you I really saw a mermaid?

 

Now, I am very interested in hearing this because I was under the impression that science is proven, through measurements and calculations, which I thought would be based on space and time. Now, obviously I am not a science major. Can you explain this in layman's terms.

It’s not proven. Anything that is proposed about before the “Big Bang” falls outside the realm of science into science fiction and religion.

 

Instant of the Big Bang.

 

Particles burst into existence (OH! THAT'S what it is! It's not an EXPLOSION, it's a BURST. Sorry, my bad. )

Nope. Particles weren’t formed until after the cosmic inflation stopped. (Which by the way is more accurate a description of the event than “Bang”)

Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles

 

Did you know that, in response to the question "Where did the material come from for this 'Big Bang'?", scientists are now entertaining the notion that there are other dimensions! This is commonly called the M-Theory, which is an expansion of the String-Theory. They admit there is no evidence for this String Theory), that is the building block for "Mr. M", yet they are willing to believe it anyway. Nothing but an unfinished mathematical theory. NO evidence. None. Yet they believe it.

Bologna!!! It’s really a hypothesis. Not a belief. String theory has supporting mathematical models, but as of yet there is no evidence to support it. Really, amongst scientists it is debated whether string theory can rightly be called science yet, because even though it is dealing with things that are extremely elegant in their mathematical models, until supporting evidence can be found it still isn’t considered hard science by today's standards.

 

They are however doing experiments with particle accelerators in Europe where if they could witness a graviton particle leave this universe, would go a long way to establish String Theory's models with empirical data. That’s how science works.

 

Now, why is it more logical to say there is no possibility of a Biblical God because you see no proof? Yet, for some strange reason, believe in a Big Bang when scientists willingly admit to the very same thing we are accused of. Having no actual evidence.

Your argument is broken because of your errors above.

 

Why exactly can they entertain that there are dimensions, they do not understand, where our universe originated from? However, not even taking into consideration the BIBLICAL God, they can't even entertain the idea that maybe there is (at the very least) an intelligent being, in one of those dimensions, that brought forth this universe?

Because they have huge mathematical models that stand up. It’s still an idea at this point, and not a scientific fact. It’s a damned good idea, and it may or may not be right. But the reason they entertain it as possible is because it’s based on something tangible, rather than pure speculation alone. Religion cannot begin to compare it’s foundations to what’s going on in the world of String Theory. It’s like comparing String Theory being on the same level as belief in Leprechauns.

 

Any questions?

[Checkmate]

Humph. Over a year later and some people are just as clueless as they were before.

 

Just for people like YOU, Kat22, I posted this thread Evolution Is Not At Odds With God. You REALLY should read it, then take one of these

and relax.

 

~ Checkmate

[Asimov]

I have never read so much misinformation about the Big Bang in one post, Kat.

[Kat22]

MWC, you stated

Show a "god" scientifically (in this case mathematically) in a reproducible fashion and people WILL listen to you.

 

Nope. God is beyond time and space and, therefore, cannot be proven purely through mathematics alone. Besides, I am not major in mathematics.

 

One more thing. If you listened to the radio talk, I placed in my first post, you will realize that the String Theory has a major mathematical problem. The theory is so wishy washy that all you have to do is teak a couple numbers and you come up with an entirely different direction. You might want to forgo the "mathematical" approach.

 

But, based on your own challenge, I bring the same one back to you. Can you reproduce a universe to prove even ONE mathematical theory?

 

Mythra, you hit the nail right on the head. As I stated, for me it really is that simple. God exists beyond time and space and, therefore is eternal. I know to you it sounds like intellectual suicide. Though my intellect ends i still have my faith in God.

 

Imagine you sat in your bedroom and authored a book of rules and laws and called it time, another called space and several others which refer to the laws of existence in a place called "reality." As the author of these rules you are not subject to them. You exist beyond them. Then you breathe life into your creation and bang! Life happens. You're still in your bedroom; you exist - and so does your creation; subject to your rules.

 

Dhampir, to answer your question, no. I was stating that, if they are willing to believe in the idea of other dimensions (especially one not subject to our laws of time and space), it's not a very big leap to entertain the possibility that there is intelligence in one of those universes that could create this universe. Or are we so arrogant to believe that there is nothing that surpasses us?

 

To address Han,

 

Before I dive into details about the Big Bang, I have to ask you, there are Christians (I was one of them) that believe that Big Bang is the way God created the Universe. Are they wrong in that belief?

 

It is very possible that God used this method. However, that also takes into consideration that the source of energy/matter came from God and that God placed everything where He desired it to be. One of the problems, I have with the scientific version of the Big Bang, is that there are too many variables for it to be mere chance that it all came together perfectly.

 

Someone mentioned the probability of a pebble landing, in a beach of pebbles, in the exact spot that it landed. I would go one further. How did it even get there? I still don't understand how science explains the very existence of matter itself. Is it just that "something" had to be here so matter is the filler? To me, it just seems kind of... irrational.

 

 

HuaiDan said

Comprehending spacetime beyond the 4 dimensions we are perceptually aware of really helps in understanding the Big Bang. And Big Bang is just a name, chosen more for its irreverent aesthetic than for its descriptive ability. At the time of the Big Bang and for sometime thereafter, the laws of physics were completely different than they are now, so phenomena such as sound didn't exist as we know it, or would have to be given a completely new definition to apply.

 

That sounds a lot like what pre-creation might have been like. But, just as science can't prove the existence (or non-existence) of God beyond a shadow of a doubt. Can science prove (or disprove) this theory beyond a shadow of a doubt?

 

Crazy Tiger addresses the What, when, why and how of God's creation.

What happened: the universe was created by God (of course)

How it happened: He said "Let there be light... and earth... and water... and animals.. and humans..."

When it happened: Based on biblical data, it appears to be 50,000 years ago or less. Based on the genealogy of the bible, we can;t be too far out. But I haven't studied that in debth so my answer will not be definite.

Why it happened: I believe it is a result of God's will to create. As to why He willed it, there can be just as many explanations as there are mathematical guesses for the String Theory.

 

 

I pose the same question back:

 

What happened:

How it happened:

When it happened:

Why it happened:

 

AgnosticBob: Just because man can explain some of what God has done does not take away the fact that it came from God. How exactly does God complicate things? It seems pretty simple to say "God did it!" God created all that science is now beginning to unlock. God created mathematics, time and space. We are merely figuring out how He did some of it. For example: Gravity existed before it was labeled by man. DNA existed before it was discovered. Etc, etc, etc... there is nothing new under the sun.

 

Brother Jeff, I apologize for missing your post. Could you please re-post it here and I will be happy to address it.

 

As far as the quote you posted, it seems this explanation relies on a mass-energy (or a singularity with no volume? sorry, it's rather late here) with no beginning? Sounds kind of faith-based to me.

 

Antlerman, you said

 

Here’s a brief primer course to help you understand the use of the word “Theory†in science, and how NOTHING is ever proven. It’s an open ended discipline

 

So, it sounds to me like "open ended discipline" means nothing can truly ever be known, because it can change again based on our current level of understanding. So what the point of search facts when the facts change? Seems kind of futile. Under this notion, how would you ever know if you know anything?

 

Secondly, it's not so much that someone can't believe something without hard fact. People do that all the time. But it's more a matter of believing fantastical things without fantastic evidence! It's like Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Wouldn't you ask for proof if I told you I really saw a mermaid?

 

This would depend on the source of the claim. Is the person, speaking, known to be trustworthy? I have found God to be trustworthy in all my experiences. So, God's credibility is not in question with me. I take Him at His Word.

 

It’s not proven. Anything that is proposed about before the “Big Bang†falls outside the realm of science into science fiction and religion.

 

So that means we can throw out the String Theory and M-Theory, and pretty much anything else that tries to explain where the energy for the Big Bang came from, right? Much less all matter and everything else. Brother Jeff stated that the mass-energy had no beginning. Who's right?

 

It’s really a hypothesis. Not a belief. String theory has supporting mathematical models, but as of yet there is no evidence to support it. Really, amongst scientists it is debated whether string theory can rightly be called science yet,...

 

Yet it is being treated as a viable explanation by the scientific world. Sounds kind of squishy to me.

 

Because they have huge mathematical models that stand up.

 

Do you comprehend, in detail, these "huge mathematical models that stand up" - for yourself - or do you simply have blind faith in the people that tout them?

[Dhampir]

Nope. God is beyond time and space and therefore, cannot be proven purely...* Yeah... not one word after this matters. Nothing*

with that statement, the only one of your reply that matters, what you've said is that you're completely unable to give us ANYTHING that we have not already seen and dismissed as unworthy. Furthermore, that you came here with a question which you proceeded to answer shows that you are unlikely (until proven otherwise) to accept or take to heart any of what you have been given in this thread. IF you say that god is a provable concept, then go on to assert that god is not provable by any means we have to do so, and if you read, understand and then subsequently disregard the info dispensed here as a correction of the misinformation you have provided...

 

Then Leave. You are wasting your time and ours.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, you said

 

Here’s a brief primer course to help you understand the use of the word “Theory” in science, and how NOTHING is ever proven. It’s an open ended discipline

 

So, it sounds to me like "open ended discipline" means nothing can truly ever be known, because it can change again based on our current level of understanding. So what the point of search facts when the facts change? Seems kind of futile. Under this notion, how would you ever know if you know anything?

Yes this is correct, and incorrect. Nothing can be known absolutely, because we cannot know everything. As we learn more, our ideas about things improve, or they change altogether. This is reality. This is how you live. This is why science in honest, and religion dishonest. They claim you can know and that knowledge can not be subject to improvement or modification. This is not in touch with reality.

 

No futile, real. BTW, the “facts” don’t change. Only how we understand the facts does. Understand?

 

BTW, You don't understand the scientific method, do you? You didn't answer my question. Can you briefly explain to me what it is, how it works, and why they use it. You should be able to do it in under two paragraphs easily. Please show me you understand that, otherwise this converstation is almost pointless.

 

Secondly, it's not so much that someone can't believe something without hard fact. People do that all the time. But it's more a matter of believing fantastical things without fantastic evidence! It's like Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Wouldn't you ask for proof if I told you I really saw a mermaid?

 

This would depend on the source of the claim. Is the person, speaking, known to be trustworthy? I have found God to be trustworthy in all my experiences. So, God's credibility is not in question with me. I take Him at His Word.

If the most trustworthy person in the world told you that they saw a mermaid flying a UFO, would you blindly believe them and not ask for any sort of evidence at all? Let me answer that for you. Of course you would doubt them. You would doubt them because there is nothing in the natural world to suggest these things are true.

 

BTW, to say since God told you about God so therefore I believe it? … ummm…. Isn’t that circular reasoning? Self referencing?

 

It’s not proven. Anything that is proposed about before the “Big Bang” falls outside the realm of science into science fiction and religion.

 

So that means we can throw out the String Theory and M-Theory, and pretty much anything else that tries to explain where the energy for the Big Bang came from, right? Much less all matter and everything else. Brother Jeff stated that the mass-energy had no beginning. Who's right?

Many scientists feel that string theory is almost a philosophy or a religion and is not true science (as I said before). So because things like this can’t be corroborated, they would be more speculative. I don’t think throwing out string theory is warranted however. Just because a baby isn’t 100% perfect, is it worthless? That sounds rather severe.

 

It’s really a hypothesis. Not a belief. String theory has supporting mathematical models, but as of yet there is no evidence to support it. Really, amongst scientists it is debated whether string theory can rightly be called science yet,...

 

Yet it is being treated as a viable explanation by the scientific world. Sounds kind of squishy to me.

Where? No it’s not. It’s an interesting, and intriguing hypothesis. I don’t think any scientist calls it “a viable explanation”. That’s entirely your own assumption. Show me where science calls a viable explanation. It doesn't have corroboration. They wouldn't call it that.

 

Science deals with the natural world. If you have no evidence in the natural world, then it’s technically not science. That’s why String Theory isn’t considered a viable scientific theory, yet.

 

Sorry. Why don’t you try going after the Theory of Evolution if you want to attack a true blue scientific theory. Then we can talk about the real differences between faith and fact. Please. Tell me there's as much evidence for God as there is for the Theory of Evolution. Please...

 

Because they have huge mathematical models that stand up.

 

Do you comprehend, in detail, these "huge mathematical models that stand up" - for yourself - or do you simply have blind faith in the people that tout them?

*yawn* Oh, yes that’s right. This old chestnut. I don’t need to understand the math to respect the legitimacy of the pursuit. Why? Because the math is there for other mathematicians to check. If we’re talking real science, something like this is called “peer review” It’s a system of checks and balances to corroborate a persons data and research. I have confidence in the system because of how it works, and the resultant products that occur because it does in fact work very, very well. It is hardly “blind faith”.

 

Now however, on the other hand… Leprechauns. Let’s talk fantastical creatures whose only evidence of existence is the commonality of tales about them, and people’s shared visions of them! Oh and I suppose, testimonies of finding pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. That pretty much sums up the evidence. Now, is placing confidence in that system of “checks and balances” (there is none), merited? Would finding confidence in this sort of system be far, far better described as a leap of faith, as compared to my example before this? Oh yes indeed. Placing confidence is something that has *crap* for support defines and embodies the term “blind faith”.

 

I simply have a higher degree of confidence in the credibility of the system, which is still open to modification. Please tell me you can see the difference here?

[Ouroboros]

To address Han,

 

Before I dive into details about the Big Bang, I have to ask you, there are Christians (I was one of them) that believe that Big Bang is the way God created the Universe. Are they wrong in that belief?

 

It is very possible that God used this method. However, that also takes into consideration that the source of energy/matter came from God and that God placed everything where He desired it to be. One of the problems, I have with the scientific version of the Big Bang, is that there are too many variables for it to be mere chance that it all came together perfectly.

 

Someone mentioned the probability of a pebble landing, in a beach of pebbles, in the exact spot that it landed. I would go one further. How did it even get there? I still don't understand how science explains the very existence of matter itself. Is it just that "something" had to be here so matter is the filler? To me, it just seems kind of... irrational.

First of all you misunderstand the illustration of the pebble in the sand, but I won't go any further into it, because I think it's more important for you to consider this:

 

Science is the study of what is and how it works. It's not the study of any "purpose" for it. So when you are critical against what science finds and how they create models of what they observe, you basically saying "it doesn't make sense to me, so therefore it must be wrong" even before you consider that it could very well be exactly how science describe it and as you say God did it that way. So why do you refuse to accept the Big Bang? If God does exist, and he did use the Big Bang to create everything, you are the one in denial of God's power to do it that way. I thought you believe in an all powerful God, but obviously you deny that possibility.

 

When it comes to your question that there's "too many variables for it tobe mere chance that it all came together perfectly" could be based on your misconception of what science really say about the subject. I've seen several issues with your first post and the recent post to understand that you don't have a very good grasp of what the theory really say.

 

Just to mention one part, it wasn't a "bang" in the sense you think of it. An explosion is when particles fly around and react with surrounding matter and energy. The Big Bang isn't a bang anymore, but an expansion like when you blow up a baloon. It's space that expands rapidly without losing its organized state. As I said, science doesn't have a problem with the organisation of the universe, but the fact that some things are not organised.

 

Currently I'm too uninterested in explaining this to you, and I know there are plenty of people that will fill you in on the details, but your arguments do not hold water to reject the theory.

 

With that said, there are scientists that do have a problem with Big Bang, and you mentioned the M-Theory as an expansion of the BB theory, which is wrong. The M-Theory would become a replacement for BB and not an extension. There are known holes in the BB theory, and there are competing theories that eventually can replace it, but there are evidence that the universe came from a very small original point of origin. The math supports it, the observations supports it, other theories developed based on this theory all come together and it works. That's the basis for a valid model that it fits what is observed.

 

In the end I'd say you're the one denying God's greatness and power by rejecting what science can figure out about nature. If nature is what nature is, and it can't lie, and scientists can see for what it is, and you reject it because it doesn't fit your idea or personal interpretation of your Holy Book, then it's not the Holy Book's fault or natures fault or the scientists fault or even the fault of the theory, but you who refuse to see beyond your own limitations.

 

If a star explodes, and we observe it, how can you deny it happens only because you have a belief that it can't happen? You have to step outside your own little box of belief, and look at your religion and see that a lot of it can fit. It's a matter of re-interpreting the words of your Book. The Bible doesn't say HOW God did it, but you demand that the theory matches your idea you have received from other people. You have been given the idea that BB can't be true, and you are fooled by them because they're afraid it would take away their faith. Are you so afraid of knowing the truth of nature?

[crazy-tiger]

Crazy Tiger addresses the What, when, why and how of God's creation.

What happened: the universe was created by God (of course)

How it happened: He said "Let there be light... and earth... and water... and animals.. and humans..."

And... how did he do that? You've not given an answer at all, just a way to AVOID answering the question... which is exactly my point.

When it happened: Based on biblical data, it appears to be 50,000 years ago or less. Based on the genealogy of the bible, we can;t be too far out. But I haven't studied that in debth so my answer will not be definite.

Based on Biblical data, which consists of how old people were when they gave birth to certain other people, no-one knows. Another question you can't answer. (and even your "guess" is contradicting itself...)

Why it happened: I believe it is a result of God's will to create. As to why He willed it, there can be just as many explanations as there are mathematical guesses for the String Theory.

In other words, you don't know and you've no intention of answering.

 

Again, using God just lets you avoid answering the question, while giving the impression you've answered it. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

I pose the same question back:

 

What happened:

How it happened:

When it happened:

Why it happened:

Go read up on BBT... I'm not doing the work for you.

 

The irony is, you're asking those questions and demanding answers from me... yet you're sat at a PC with a connection to the internet and have access to the EXACT SAME ANSWERS I have access to. Ignorant and lazy... it's a lovely combination.

 

But it get's better! You're not just ignorant and lazy, you're also hypocritical... you're demanding more and more answers, ever more detail and proof for BBT, yet you'll accept an inexact non-answer with absolutely no proof if it involves your God.

 

 

Right this moment, you're proving that you're not here to learn anything... you're just here to attack something that contradicts your belief, and you'll attack it by using lies if you have to all so you can shore up a belief that is falling apart. It's pathetic, but also amusing to see you try.

[Grandpa Harley]

Thesis: God created the universe, since order cannot arise from nothing or from chaos.

 

If the thesis is true, then who or what created the 'ordered' God of creation?

 

simple question... Answer it, Christian.

[quicksand]

Nope. God is beyond time and space and, therefore, cannot be proven purely through mathematics alone.

Then what? What mode of inquiry, if not by science (the only tool we have in understanding nature) can prove GOD's existence Kat? What methodolgy do you propose to empirically demonstrate and measure what this GOD is, Kat?

 

It's a simple question to a simple statement from you Kat. But do keep in mind that your GOD is a supernatural being. Humans are the things of nature and science is a thing of nature, practiced by humans. Do you have some kind of supernatural science we should be practicing instead? All you've done is made appeals to nature and arguments from ignorance in this thread.

[Ouroboros]

Kat22,

 

Here's some more food for thought:

 

You say God can not have created the World through a Big Bang, because you don't believe it. But doesn't that make God smaller?

 

You say Big Bang is impossible because you have some questions you don't have answers for. But doesn't that just mean that you have studied enough to find them all?

 

You say there can not be order from an explosion, so BB can't be true because the Universe is ordered. Then why do yuu use an explosion as an example of how chaos can become? You say an expolsion creates chaos, and these explosions you think of happens in this Universe, so in essence you say chaos DO exist in this Universe. So what order in the Universe are you talking about? The pre-gun-powder era in the world or what? You see, explosions are ... (drumroll) ORDERED! It's ordered chaos. If you took every single particles and heat wave or whatever effect you get from an explosion and backtrack it (today it's impossible, but theoretical it is possible), you can put it all together to it's starting point. In computer games they simulate explosions accurately to a very high degree (not 100%, but almost) and they calculate it based on knowledge of physical reality and the math behind it. If you look into chaos theory you will see that what we see as chaos is mostly just a very high degree of order, but it's so complex that we think it's random and chaotic, but in reality it's not. So what kind of non-order are you talking about?

 

There was a time when Big Bang wasn't an issue for Christians, but then along came religious fundamentalist nutjobs that wanted the schism between religion and science. They did so because they felt they lost the control of peoples minds and started to invent pseudo-conflicts. Kat, there is NO conflict between Genesis and Big Bang. You have been told lies by people who want you to believe there is a conflict, because they're afraid of science. They have made you afraid too and want to you to become blind to reality and nature. What is in the world and nature, will be in the world regardless of what they say. Take ownership over your mind again, and don't let religious controlfreaks own your brain anymore.