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

Originally posted by twfau
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.

And MANY people who did not believe were subsequently tortured and killed, removing "the competition".

Originally posted by Krakatoa
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....

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 through 5 go on to say;

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Krakatoa
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....

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 through 5 go on to say;

2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Hmmm... I don't see any reference to getting a zero on an exam here...or even the word 'singularity'. Does that word appear anywhere in that book?

reply to post by Krakatoa

Hmmm... I don't see any reference to getting a zero on an exam here...or even the word 'singularity'. Does that word appear anywhere in that book?

According to the bible you would get a zero because your answer should be that God created the singularity because by definition, scope and reasonable dialect, a singularity is part of the "heavens".

I must admit though, I'm a little confused as to what the actual argument has become...... How did it turn from a debate about the similarity of the big bang and creationism to an answer on a physics test?

Originally posted by Helious
How did it turn into a debate about the similarity of the big bang and creationism to an answer on a physics test?

We're having that discussion because the OP used it as part of his argument to back up his point of view.

As I quoted earlier, it is against ATS terms and conditions to post lies, and so once again I find it dissapointing that not a single creationist appears to be concerned that pulling stuff out of your arse to bolster your argument, is a problem.

Unless the claim is true. Which is why I asked for references.

reply to post by Helious

I must admit though, I'm a little confused as to what the actual argument has become...... How did it turn into a debate about the similarity of the big bang and creationism to an answer on a physics test?

I too am confused about it, but it is relevant since it was a statement made by the OP and used to bolster his argument. It was not stated as his/her opinion, or that the test as being done in a seminary/religious school context. I was just trying to clarify where that claim originated, other than from the mind of the OP.

BTW: Not everyone believes in that book. Many people on this planet believe in other books, scripture, or nothing. SO stating that any student would get a zero based on this one book is fallacious, right?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Helious
How did it turn into a debate about the similarity of the big bang and creationism to an answer on a physics test?

We're having that discussion because the OP used it as part of his argument to back up his point of view.

As I quoted earlier, it is against ATS terms and conditions to post lies, and so once again I find it dissapointing that not a single creationist appears to be concerned that pulling stuff out of your arse to bolster your argument, is a problem.

Unless the claim is true. Which is why I asked for references.

Ah yes, thank you for the clarification because oddly I missed that part of the OP and just caught it as I re read it after your post. I honestly have no knowledge of what he is talking about there and don't claim to know so carry on.

That moment when you realize you have been arguing something completely different for 5 posts

Originally posted by alfa1

Greylorn wrote--
"Any physics student whose exam answer includes a singularity will get a zero on that exam question."

Originally posted by alfa1
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

Alfa1,

Drat! You nailed me! I got mostly A's in physics and never produced a singularity by way of answer. I neglected to obtain copies of the exams of fellow students, and did not try for a Sociology degree that might have enabled me to obtain such exam copies to further my dissertation.

You are therefore entitled to write off my assertions as F.O.S.

I have a book on the subject that goes into greater detail, but alas, it does not contain the references you requested, so don't bother reading it.

Originally posted by rickymouse
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

Good theories are independent of technology. However, those theories that engage the mind will inspire technology.

Originally posted by twfau
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.

Kindly stick to the thread's OP. I did not appeal to religious beliefs, but rather to a theological position, which is inherently philosophical. I abhor religion. It is for programmed dimwits.

My theories are derived from studies of physics, cosmology, biochemistry, biology, etc.

While you are correct that "science," whatever that means, does not "believe" in BB theory, watch Dr. Caca on the documentary channels. You'll find that it is the operative theory foisted onto ignorant TV-watching science-camp-following rubes.

Originally posted by Helious

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.

Good insight!

Originally posted by CB328

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?

The only thing that "everyone in America" does not know is where those other universes came from?

Since you obviously do, kindly elucidate for us. I must have missed the televised Dr. Caca show that explained it.

Originally posted by jiggerj
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.

JJ,
Drink some coffee. I can offer you a more interesting theory.

Y'know, I can agree (in a way) with the premise of this thread (as I understand it).

"The belief in the Big Bang Theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God"

Since neither of these has absolute proof nor is repeatable, then they are both beliefs. And all beliefs (IMO) are equivalent. Just as the belief in an omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster creator is equivalent to both of the former beliefs.

In your OP you made this statement:

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?

However, the Ekpyrotic Theory does NOT require a singularity, yet, it still supports the Big Bang Theory. SO, isn;t that worth discussing as a potential origin as much as an omnipotent God?

reply to post by Helious

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

Except that we have factual evidence to back up the fact that the big bang took place, why and what came before it is still up for debate, but the fact that the big bang happened is just that, a fact, we have ample evidence to show you, but alas, you have to be open to learning new information that doesn't fit in line with "god did it".

It's not really a fair comparison as such, because there is no evidence what so ever for "creation" but there is ample evidence for the big bang.

And guess what? The big bang, just like evolution, still doesn't rule out a creator. What came before the bang? Why did the bang take place at all?

EXACTLY.

reply to post by Krakatoa

Since neither of these has absolute proof nor is repeatable, then they are both beliefs. And all beliefs (IMO) are equivalent. Just as the belief in an omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster creator is equivalent to both of the former beliefs.

But you'd be wrong, we have evidence that the big bang took place, we just don't know why, and what came before it.