Problems with the Big Bang theory

[Tokzic]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

This thread is precisely why I don't buy into atheism - people ignore all organized religions, don't even bother to come up with their own ideas, then decide that the only possible reason that all organized religions could be wrong is because there is no god in any shape or form. Having an omnipotent being that is free of the bindings of time and space that created the universe has just as many holes in evidence as a superparticle in an unmeasurable amount of nothing exploding into planets that have particles that line themselves up to make beings with consciousness. Both are equally likely and blindly choosing one over the other is logically foolish.

[devonin]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Scientific views propose to have proof and evidence, or at least propose to seek out that proof and evidence. Religious views propose to explain the difficult questions by appeals to omnipotence which require no further explanation.

That is why the one view is logically stronger than the other.

However, don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the non-religious view is a logically stronger one, since it proposes to have proper evidence for its claims, and thus fits into the rubric of proper logic, that it is in any way more apt to be correct in this instance.

I've recently read several articles written a few decades ago about the potential problems involved in the use of DDT as a pesticide. The argument that it was a bad thing to use was horribly illogical, claims were made without any evidence at all, there were generalisations, appeals to emotion, appeals to consequences, all kinds of logical fallacy. It was a -very- weak argument. The article proposing that it was perfectly safe if not beneficial was chock full of scientific evidence, tests conducted, records consulted, and made a very strong case logically for the benefits of DDT.

Now years later we know for a fact that the terrible argument against it was the correct one, and that a lot of the statistical data used to support the stance that it was perfectly safe was biased, in some cases inaccurate, and very much a product of the science conducted in the 70s and early 80s.

So basically: "All things being equal" I (and many others) would be more inclined to accept an explanation that seemed to mesh with current evidence, intended to continue conducting testing and experimentation to corroborate the current position, and was perfectly willing to accept that it could be mistaken in some or all aspects of the argument, and intended to find out, over an explanation that seemed to simply say "It was done like this" and close the book, certain that it was completely and fully correct.

[Reach]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

In the proposed theory of the Big Bang, there was a particle (not the correct terminology, mind you) that was near infinitely small and near infinitely condensed. That ball of matter, in short, got too small for it's own good and blew up

Uh. This is a serious misunderstanding of the Big Bang, though quite common. There was no matter at the beginning of the universe. It didn't get 'too small and blow up' either, since there was no matter. The first particles were not seen until after the Big Bang, and developed due to 1. an incredibly high energy density expansion 2. Super high temperatures and 3. Super high pressures. The Big Bang was not a classical explosion in that something exploded. Rather, it was an expansion of energy with all points trying to rush away from one another.

It would be illogical to say that there was ever a time where no matter existed

There was no matter in the early Big Bang. E=mc^2...matter is just another manifestation of energy and resulted from the Big Bang itself.

Well, one of the potential solutions to the question of how such a superdense particle could have existed is the "Big Bang/Big Crunch" model that proposes something similar to the universe expanding until the force of the Big Bang has dissipated, and then condensing back in on itself in a "Big Crunch" eventually leading to another Big Bang.

This one is dying out in popularity, mostly due to the discovery of the incredibly high density of dark energy in the universe. The universe is on a runaway course to infinity, expanding faster and faster until everything is destroyed due to entropy. So uh, yea, the idea is pretty much useless in explaining anything now >_>

Having an omnipotent being that is free of the bindings of time and space that created the universe has just as many holes in evidence as a superparticle in an unmeasurable amount of nothing exploding into planets that have particles that line themselves up to make beings with consciousness

Not really. Alright, your simplistic view of the Big Bang Theory in an attempt to degrade it's status aside, we can study quite carefully the evolution of the universe. The progress is quite slow, but we've come a long way and have a long way to go. There are several ways to look back at the early universe scientifically (old light observations, cosmic microwave background radiation left from the big bang, general relativity etc), and they are most certainly not dainty blind choices. Of course looking at what caused the Big Bang is pure speculation...but we are most certainly closer to the answer by making smart guesses (based on what we do know), compared to pulling it out of our ass because of emotional necessity thousands of years ago. >_>

I mean, there aren't 'holes' in 'having an omnipotent creator' since there is no evidence to suggest there is one in the first place. Anyone that thinks there is is highly mistaken. It's faith. I can respect it, but a knowledgeable theist should be able to recognize what they see is not evidence, but a specific untestable interpretation of the world around them. If that is satisfying than so be it.

[SCWolf]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

You have an answer for everyones questions Reach

[jecht3009046]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Sorry for the lack of clarity, Reach. I don't know whether or not you read this sentence fully, though I understand it is not completely a truth.

Mostly what is written in parenthesis.

As a theory, all matter has ALWAYS existed (most likely spending most of it's lifetime in an energy-like state). Time has also always existed. At no point was matter suddenly materialized from nothingness, because that's just silly.

I suppose a better understanding of how matter was created would require a fuller understanding of bosons, photons, positrons, and the works.

As for my unclarity on the explanation of the Big Bang theory, I was trying to oversimplify it for the sake of focus on another topic. Much of the unclarity ties to the quoted statement.

[Tokzic]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Not really. Alright, your simplistic view of the Big Bang Theory in an attempt to degrade it's status aside, we can study quite carefully the evolution of the universe. The progress is quite slow, but we've come a long way and have a long way to go. There are several ways to look back at the early universe scientifically (old light observations, cosmic microwave background radiation left from the big bang, general relativity etc), and they are most certainly not dainty blind choices. Of course looking at what caused the Big Bang is pure speculation...but we are most certainly closer to the answer by making smart guesses (based on what we do know), compared to pulling it out of our ass because of emotional necessity thousands of years ago. >_>

I mean, there aren't 'holes' in 'having an omnipotent creator' since there is no evidence to suggest there is one in the first place. Anyone that thinks there is is highly mistaken. It's faith. I can respect it, but a knowledgeable theist should be able to recognize what they see is not evidence, but a specific untestable interpretation of the world around them. If that is satisfying than so be it.

Of course there's no evidence - if an omnipotent being wanted to stay out of sight, then there's nothing stopping it. The very nature of an omnipotent being is that it cannot be proven or disproven.

The Big Bang theory is the same. We can probe all we want, but the fact is we will never be able to find out what caused the Big Bang, or the numerous other problems with the theory that cannot be solved. You can't say "well your argument doesn't have any evidence but mine has some which is better than none so i am right and you are wrong".

I refuse to bend one way or the other in a scientific debate that has no absolute answer.

[Reach]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

The Big Bang theory is the same. We can probe all we want, but the fact is we will never be able to find out what caused the Big Bang, or the numerous other problems with the theory that cannot be solved. You can't say "well your argument doesn't have any evidence but mine has some which is better than none so i am right and you are wrong".

That's not what I'm saying at all. In reality there *is* no argument since the God side of the 'argument' hasn't put forth anything to argue anyway other than a blank, untestable statement. But anyway,

The Big Bang has been shown to have happened without a doubt. WMAP confirmed this back in 2006 and no one ever argues about whether or not it happened. So we know for near certainty many things about how the universe came to be.

To say that we'll never know what caused the Big Bang or that there are problems with the theory that cannot be solved is quite the leap of faith on your part. I would say you're wrong, and assuming our species doesn't perish any time soon we will learn a great deal about where the universe came from and beyond. There is no reason to believe otherwise. Physics continues to advance like anything else.

This is in sharp contrast with this God you speak of that cannot be proven or disproven. Like the infinite number of other things I can come up with on a whim that I can't test for truthfulness, they are all absurd. We apply parsimony on a day to day basis because it works; the more assumptions you make about a quantity the more you increase the absurdity and the unlikelihood of the claim.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we've been at this before so I'll let it go. You didn't budge then so I don't think you'll budge now XD


And jecht...I see. I don't like the simplification though, because it reeks ignorance on the subject, and a lot of people use these misrepresentations of the theory to try to make arguments against it.

[Grandiagod]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

This is in sharp contrast with this God you speak of that cannot be proven or disproven. Like the infinite number of other things I can come up with on a whim that I can't test for truthfulness, they are all absurd. We apply parsimony on a day to day basis because it works; the more assumptions you make about a quantity the more you increase the absurdity and the unlikelihood of the claim.

Best way to put it I've ever seen Reach, bravo.

Somehow god has gotten more credibility than Unicorns, despite having the same amount of evidence. If you use "it can't be proven or disproven" as a justification for agnosticism, I can ask you to remain agnostic toward faeries, and using your own qualifications, then you have to remain agnostic toward tinkerbell instead of dismissing it as nonsense.

[Tokzic]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

The Big Bang has been shown to have happened without a doubt. WMAP confirmed this back in 2006 and no one ever argues about whether or not it happened. So we know for near certainty many things about how the universe came to be.To say that we'll never know what caused the Big Bang or that there are problems with the theory that cannot be solved is quite the leap of faith on your part. I would say you're wrong, and assuming our species doesn't perish any time soon we will learn a great deal about where the universe came from and beyond. There is no reason to believe otherwise. Physics continues to advance like anything else.

I never claimed that the Big Bang didn't happen, because it's pretty clear that it did. My main pressing against science here is that it can't tell us why, how, or what was there before. I find it hilarious that you think science will ever give us answers to these questions, Reach. You might as well claim that if I used a bomb to disintigrate a clay sculpture, not only will you be able to find out what the sculpture looked like, but you'll know what words were written on the bomb's shell. They're lost facts. Claiming you can find them is preposterous, saying 'well we can't find them now but we'll find them one day' doesn't prove anything and the statement itself can't be backed up. Particularly funny is your calling it 'faith'. Faith in science to fix all your problems leaves the same ever-important unknowns that faith in science does, and they will not be answered, no matter how much blind faith you have.

Somehow god has gotten more credibility than Unicorns, despite having the same amount of evidence. If you use "it can't be proven or disproven" as a justification for agnosticism, I can ask you to remain agnostic toward faeries, and using your own qualifications, then you have to remain agnostic toward tinkerbell instead of dismissing it as nonsense.

My qualifications are need of an absolute answer to an unknown beyond comprehension. You're saying a scrap of evidence is reason to dismiss the opposing argument. Taking a stance in something whose nature is something that cannot be proven is just as foolish as the opposite, and your comparison works in reverse - by your standards, if I were to claim Tinkerbell visited me last night then showed you a pile of glowing dust, you'd eat it up.

The existence of a god is a potential solution to existance as we know it, just as the Big Bang is. The Big Bang happened, yeah, which is a start, but it's missing all the limbs that a god does. Just because we can see the Big Bang's torso doesn't mean it can stand up and shake hands with you.

[devonin]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Best way to put it I've ever seen Reach, bravo.

Somehow god has gotten more credibility than Unicorns, despite having the same amount of evidence. If you use "it can't be proven or disproven" as a justification for agnosticism, I can ask you to remain agnostic toward faeries, and using your own qualifications, then you have to remain agnostic toward tinkerbell instead of dismissing it as nonsense.

Agnosticism comes in two stripes. In neither reasonable case to they extend agnosticism to "everything" nor can you really be "Agnostic about [insert random concept]" The real basis for Agnosticism deals with the overarching questions of the origins of the universe and the nature of its creation.

A weak agnostic says "I haven't seen enough evidence to support or deny, so I will withhold judgement until then" and is the more common kind of agnostic, and the most defensible position of all on the subject since it doesn't actually take a position.

A strong agnostic says "The matters of the creation of the universe and the existance of a creator are simply beyond the ability of the human mind to understand, so the question is meaningless."

Feeling that the nature of an omnipotent, and omniscient God is beyond the capability of a human to understand in no way obliges an agnostic to submit to the possibility of every absurd concept being likely to be true.

You can't say "well your argument doesn't have any evidence but mine has some which is better than none so i am right and you are wrong".

No, but you -can- say "Your argument doesn't have any evidence, but mine has some, which is better than none, so I am -more likely- to be right and you are -more likely- to be wrong.

All absolute statements are foolish.

[Tokzic]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

No, but you -can- say "Your argument doesn't have any evidence, but mine has some, which is better than none, so I am -more likely- to be right and you are -more likely- to be wrong.All absolute statements are foolish.

Exactly right, and exactly why I worded it as I did. Taking a stance is adopting it as a belief, and if the ultimate answer is on a ten-sided die with six sides being circumstance and four sides being divinity, deciding what the roll will be and arguing against people who have decided on the opposite is laughable, especially when you won't even get to see the die land.

[Dark Ronin]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

Dark Ronin, there is a flaw in what you stated. The Big Bang theory did not "come from nothing."

First I want to say sorry; I went home over the weekend so I didn’t get to see anything that happened to the thread I started.

Now more importantly there was NO flaw in anything I stated in this thread, because I never stated anything. I just asked a question about creation, I said nothing of the big bang theory. I also started this after reading another thread that really confused me. I was hoping that the critical thinkers here could help me clear it up. I just really had no idea how ignorant I was.

I've done some research into the subject and found that most of the proof of creation (all creation not just big bang) lies in theories about different dimensions. Part of one theory I read is that we as humans only see three dimensions. There are an infinite number of possible dimensions but many scientists agree that there are at least six. Our brains can’t even begin to comprehend these dimensions. Parallel universes theoretically work with these dimensions, so the dimensions we observe here in this universe might be hidden or non-existent in others, assuming those others even exist in the first place. One even went as far as to say that Heaven lies in another dimension and our spirits are the part of ourselves that we cannot see because we are stuck in three dimensions, sounds like a crazy person to me, but its not impossible.

The truth is there are a lot of theory’s and possibilities, but all of the ones I read claimed that our brains could never with any amount of technology hope to comprehend all of the dimensions. So on that note I'll have to give up on this thread, but if someone finds anything that could possibly be understood I'd love to hear it. I'm still very interested in the subject; I'm just not sure that it fits into the critical thinking category anymore.

And as for my new thread title, I don’t buy into the big bang theory at all. Its only one explanation out of hundreds. Each just as likely as the next. Stating that gasses happened to float around and create everything is very possible, but it doesn’t explain how the gasses got there. My real question is pre-big bang. Devonin was trying to clear up my thread so it didn’t die. I appreciate his trying to keep my thread alive, but I just didn’t know what I was getting into with this one.

[brandonmcginnis]

Re: Nothing

Yeah, but then you get into the problem of infinite regress. What created God? You could answer that God has always existed, or that God created himself, or that God is too powerful to have a beginning. You could argue back and forth a long time without getting any answers.

However, you could use the same argument against the Big Bang theory. What created the Big Bang? All we have are very vague theories and the knowledge that most of the laws of reality that we're familiar with break down the closer you get to the moment of "creation". As mammals, we find it basically impossible to imagine something without a beginning (God is the exception because He's so abstract). Our brains are too small to comprehend something so mind boggling.

ok. first things first. the question. Who made God or how was God made? If something had to of created God then there had to have been a greater God to create that God. Then we have another problem. Who created the bigger God. There had to be a bigger bigger God to do that and then a bigger bigger bigger God etc. commandment #1= You shall have no other gods before me(me=God). To solve that is to say that there has to be a god that is eternal and infinite. That is God. God will never change and will always stay the same. God was and is and is to come and will always be God. Who can be an atheist when there is a fact you can prove to them. For Atheist or those who want to read cuz this will be interesting. If you dont believe in God. God is hard to believe he exists because we humans are imperfect and he design us to question ourselves and only belive what we see unless if our faith is strong. INTERESTING FACT HERE!!!!! If there is a painting then there has to be a painter for a painting can not have painted itself. The painting itself is proof there is a painter. If there is a building then there is builder. If there is creation then that is proof that there is a creator for creation can not create itself for it must have a souce and that is the creator GOD!!! NO BIG BANG it is just a theory not proven, sorry those who believe in it but you might want to rethink. I am no scientist but I am God's creation, a servant of God, made in His image. Any questions then pm me or do it some other way. I can talk about millions of things and answer them with the best I can. I am 13 you know. I doesn't matter about the age to be smart for God created each of us to be different from eachother

[Verruckter]

Re: Nothing

Blah blah

You don't know how to use this section, come back when you have something valid to say. Religious fanatism has no place here.

Your points are wrong: Life is far more complex than a painint or a building. The proof: We haven't managed to create life from raw materials. We can make paint using pigments and chemicals, and then paint a canvas, but we can't take carbon and whatnot and create a healthy, let alone living being. This combined with the fact that there are diverse but somehow similar races of animals, insects and bacterias witnesses the fact that life has come from simpler forms of life and that it has evolved, one way or another, into the multiple lifeforms we can see today.

I could go on and on about this, using analogies and evidence, but it's not like you'd be willing to even understand. Also, offtopic.

[brandonmcginnis]

Re: Problems with the Big Bang theory

I can never belive that the Big Bang theory real.NEVER

Who wants to come from a monkey anyways. God is infinite and can do infinite.