I Can't Take The Big Bang Seriously

a reply to: spy66

"there is no way you can argue against this"

First off, have you ever measured infinity? To be able to tell us what properties it must have? And have you ever measured a magical being generating the properties you mentioned, to tell us that such an entity is the only means of such properties manifesting? Where are these measurements? How did you perform the tests and record the results? This is how you properly discredit/replace an established theory in the world of professional scientific inquiry. Perhaps you will surprise us.

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 coming from someone who believes "God did it" is an acceptable answer.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

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?

Uh no...no serious scientists have the goal of crushing myths. Their purpose is to understand the cosmos.

Like I said George Laimatre was a priest who believed in God. Yet created the big bang.

Einstein believed in god whether panthiest or Hebrew he wasn't an atheist.

The big bang has nothing to do with if God exists or not. It does however prove that the dates in the OT are allegory.

People want all things to conform to scientific principals...

Can anyone here give scientific proof of anything existing that does not need a cause to exist or to be created?

All things understood by science are natural...

Because natural laws can't cause things to exist from nothing...

The cause for the begging of all existence can't be natural...

The cause of the beginning of all existence can only therefore be caused by that which is supernatural...

To be supernatural to exist beyond natural laws...
To be eternal to have dominion over all that is natural and exempt from the rules which govern it...

Well thats pretty much the description of God in the bible...

God by definition... The creator of the Universe...

Use science to prove me wrong...

But remember God is exempt from the scientific laws of his creation...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
People want all things to conform to scientific principals...

Can anyone here give scientific proof of anything existing that does not need a cause to exist or to be created?

All things understood by science are natural...

Because natural laws can't cause things to exist from nothing...

The cause for the begging of all existence can't be natural...

The cause of the beginning of all existence can only therefore be caused by that which is supernatural...

To be supernatural to exist beyond natural laws...
To be eternal to have dominion over all that is natural and exempt from the rules which govern it...

Well thats pretty much the description of God in the bible...

God by definition... The creator of the Universe...

Use science to prove me wrong...

But remember God is exempt from the scientific laws of his creation...

The cosmological argument has many rebuttal.

For one casual loops.

There is no theistic explanation of God as well. At best the cosmological argument is a diest, panthiest, or anamist explanation.

everything else has a cycle

why wouldnt this?

a reply to: luthier

So in other words you can't provide an answer with any scientific proof...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Bro, you know you aint interested in science.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

That has to be the funniest circular argument I've ever seen. You can't argue that only a supernatural cause could create the universe and use that as proof there was a supernatural cause and God created it.


Problem with invoking god into the picture is supernatural occurrences can never be proved. So you end up with a situation where faith is needed and faith isn't part of the scientific method.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: luthier

So in other words you can't provide an answer with any scientific proof...

To what a philosophical question?

I gave you a philosophical answer.

Ask me a scientific question.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: luthier

So in other words you can't provide an answer with any scientific proof...

It's really up to YOU to provide the proof. Science has already made its statement.

a reply to: TzarChasm

First off, have you ever measured infinity? To be able to tell us what properties it must have?

We dont have to measure it to know what it must be.

Infinite void of Space must be absolut and take up all Space there is. We can not measure anything that is infinite and takes up all Space there is.

For a void of Space to be absolut it must be absolut empty. It can not have any Properties other then being absolut empty.

Its timeline is a absolut constant. It never changes "ever" because it takes up all Space there is.

......................................................

Now it become complicated, because we have Our universe within this infinite void of Space. We know that Our universe is not absolut empty. And we know that Our universe must be within the absolut empty void of infinite Space, Our universe can not be anywhere else.

If we were able to observe Our universe from the outside, we would have to be at a specific distance from Our universe to be able to observe it, because Our universe have a specific finite mass and timeline. If we are to far away from Our universe to observe it..... it would be like it dosent exist... It would wanish in the void.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

First off, have you ever measured infinity? To be able to tell us what properties it must have?

We dont have to measure it to know what it must be.

Infinite void of Space must be absolut and take up all Space there is. We can not measure anything that is infinite and takes up all Space there is.

For a void of Space to be absolut it must be absolut empty. It can not have any Properties other then being absolut empty.

Its timeline is a absolut constant. It never changes "ever" because it takes up all Space there is.

......................................................

Now it become complicated, because we have Our universe within this infinite void of Space. We know that Our universe is not absolut empty. And we know that Our universe must be within the absolut empty void of infinite Space, Our universe can not be anywhere else.

If we were able to observe Our universe from the outside, we would have to be at a specific distance from Our universe to be able to observe it, because Our universe have a specific finite mass and timeline. If we are to far away from Our universe to observe it..... it would be like it dosent exist... It would wanish in the void.

You think you could summarize that in an equation? You know, like Einstein, E = mc squared?

You might be the Nobel Prize (or the Ig Nobel Prize).

originally posted by: spy66
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.

There could be a larger playing field in which our universe (and possibly other universes) exist.

Our universe could be finite while "existence" as a whole is infinite -- or at least more all-encompassing than just our universe.

You may ask:
"What are the physical properties of that larger existence",

and my answer to that would be:
"I don't know, and in fact the properties might be unknowable to us since it is outside our universe (and not subject to our universe's physcal laws) and might be outside any frame of reference that we can contemplate."


But whatever it is, it's properties could still just be the nature of it, and does not need to necessarily include a sentient supreme being.

a reply to: Phantom423

You think you could summarize that in an equation? You know, like Einstein, E = mc squared?

The Equation is already explained. When a infinite and a absolut empty void of Space creates, it must compress its own void to create finite mass. That can only be done by a void that is aware. Because a infinite void of Space that is absolut empty is also a abolut constent. There is absolut nothing there except the void. So there can not be a random event of any kind. That means you need a creator, the void need to be aware and intelligent.

In the beginning Our universe was just a compressed dense void of plasma before it formed matter/particles. THe evidence prove that Our universe is expanding so that proves it was a compressed mass initially....... THe evidence also prove that all the propertis are formed to create Our universe and life as we have observed and studied over time. It even gave us the big bang theory.And it gave us evolution......and the perspective of time. And Our universal laws. Our univers is goverened by a Law..... imagine that.....? I bet there is a reason for that to in Our study of evolution of time. In genesis Chapter one it is stated that Earth brought forth...... all the seeds, green grass, trees and life and so on.......


If you understand this. You will very fast understand that we humans have interprated genesis Chapter 1 all wrong. But that is no suprise. We all know how religion is being debated to Death.

a reply to: Gothmog

So infinite possibility
But finite reality

a reply to: Barcs

No it wouldn’t be infinite, it would have a limit to how far it can expand

a reply to: strangechristian777

You're missing the beginning of the conversation:

Theist: Everything has to have a cause, therefore God (First Cause).

Atheist: What caused God?

Theist: God doesn't need a cause he just always was

Atheist: Well then why can't we say the same for the Universe?

Let me elaborate. There are two kinds of causes that we usually deal with. The material cause (ie the material a thing is made from) and the efficient cause (that is the thing or person doing the making). So a painter is the efficient cause of a painting and a set of paints and a canvas are the material cause.

So when a theist says God is the cause of the Universe most of them believe that God did this creating from nothing (ex nihilo) and that the Universe does not need a material cause. Of course a very small minority of believers will postulate some kind of primordial material with which God can create but more often than not God is simply powerful enough to poof things into existence out of nothing.

Believers INSIST the Universe absolutely has to have an efficient cause and that that efficient cause MUST be a timeless, immaterial, disembodied mind but don't seem to mind the idea of a Universe with no material cause.

The Big Bang - we don't know what the efficient cause of the Big Bang was, if there even was one. What we know from observation is that about 14 billion years ago the Universe was condensed into a very small finite point from which it expanded rapidly and is still expanding today. Scientists are still very much debating on what, if anything, caused this to happen. What we're dealing with here is an event for which our basic intuitions about efficient and material causes may simply not apply to.

So if believers insist there MUST be a cause than why not have both efficient and material cause? If they insist that there can be an efficient cause (God) with no material cause why can't we have the opposite? Why can't we invision a Universe with a material cause but no efficient cause? Or better still a material and efficient cause that are both perfectly consistent with the natural Universe we observe and don't involve invoking disembodied minds capable of poofing things into being out of nothing.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

You suggest an interesting theory. However, there really is no getting around the fact that consciousness cannot stem from non-consciousness; consciousness can only stem from consciousness.

I don't believe in the theist's views any more than you, but that doesn't discount an original conscious creator as the origin of the universe.

a reply to: Incandescent

However, there really is no getting around the fact that consciousness cannot stem from non-consciousness; consciousness can only stem from consciousness.

I know of no such fact.

However even granting this it still creates an infinite regression wherein God's consciousness must have an origin in consciousness as well. There must be an Uber God and an Uber Mega God above that and an Uber Mega Super God above that. And in the end it really is turtles all the way down.

Rather it seems the case to me that consciousness emerges from the ground up and the idea of God out of that consciousness. The story of Adam and Eve seems, at least to me, a story of human beings grappling with becoming conscious. The knowledge of good and evil is tied to the emergence of consciousness and the discovery of the future and that discovery, called the Fall in the story of Eden, prevents human beings from partaking of the fruit of the tree of everlasting life. In other words we discovered our own mortality and by extension the effects we have on others and the future consequences of our actions thereby discovering morality/good and evil as well.

It may be human intuition to assume order is imposed from the top down but in nature we usually see order emerge out of chaos, bottom up.