Problems with the Big Bang theory

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Reach

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]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

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]

Originally Posted by Reach

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]

Originally Posted by Reach

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.

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

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]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

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.

Originally Posted by Tokzic

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

Originally Posted by jecht3009046

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]

Originally Posted by Hollus

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]

Originally Posted by brandonmcginnis

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]

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.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by brandonmcginnis

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.

Behold, another person who does not understand the word "theory" in a scientific sense, and who doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

I'll do you a favor and clear up both of your misconceptions now.

First, the word "theory." It is not simply an idea that someone comes up with that people say "Hmm, sounds neat." No, that would be a hypothesis. A theory is an idea that has been extensively researched and tested by many, many scientists, and which has been found to be accurate. A law is a theory that is pretty much guaranteed to be correct, simply because no other explanation is viable. For instance, gravity. Gravity is the only viable explanation as to why the Earth orbits the sun, etc., has been extensively tested, and therefore is a law. (These are simplistic definitions of course, and you could find more in-depth ones if you searched, but these are enough for the purposes of what I'm trying to say)

Next, your foolish thought that evolution says humans came from monkeys. That's not how evolution works, my friend. In fact, the belief that humans evolved from monkeys is the hallmark of a person who doesn't understand evolution.

Evolution states that, many many years ago, there was a certain species. Its descendants, through evolution and natural selection, began to differ from each other in a process known as "divergent evolution." One branch went to form modern humans, the other branch went on to form modern monkeys. So while humans and monkeys are related, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both came from a so-called "common ancestor."

[Relambrien]

NOTE: There is a deleted post between this one and mine above; I didn't originally double post. My post here also references part of the deleted post.

Originally Posted by brandonmcginnis

Humans that are black and white are not different because they may have came from a different species.

Umm...exactly, because somewhere down the line genetic variation caused a difference in skin color and evolution diverged further (though at this point, it was probably extremely recently in terms of evolutionary timeframes).

It's the same reason Asians have distinctive eyes: divergent evolution by genetic variation. They're still human, just with different genetic traits. If left to nature however, blacks and whites and Asians would all evolve differently and become different species based on needs.

The thing is that human evolution has pretty much ceased due to man's intervention in nature. Of the four things necessary for evolution (genetic variation, struggle for survival, differential survival and reproduction, and overpopulation of organisms), struggle for survival has been completely eliminated thanks to medicine and such. Where in the past someone with a weak immune system would have died at a young age, he can live a perfectly normal life and have children today.

But that's all pretty irrelevant so I'll just stop there.

[Reach]

There are a lot of things to address here, but this one really knocked me back with it's stupidity .

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.

This is a tautology and it holds no water.

So, if there is some grass this is proof there is a grasser? If there is a rocker this is proof this is a rocker...er? If there is a puddle then there is a puddler?

No. Besides, this just counteracts your whole argument anyway since God must be proof that there is a Godder. And if you can say God can exist without a Godder then clearly you admit your argument is wrong and not all things need creators.

watching Way of the Master videos

Well this explains everything. >__>

These guys are ridiculous and many of their arguments could probably be classified in a list of the worlds dumbest arguments. I mean, the banana argument? He uses a domesticated banana, which immediately falsifies everything he says (as a matter of fact his argument ironically supports evolution lol). These guys are just unbelievable. Get a better source of information please D;

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Umm...exactly, because somewhere down the line genetic variation caused a difference in skin color and evolution diverged further (though at this point, it was probably extremely recently in terms of evolutionary timeframes).

It's the same reason Asians have distinctive eyes: divergent evolution by genetic variation. They're still human, just with different genetic traits. If left to nature however, blacks and whites and Asians would all evolve differently and become different species based on needs.

The thing is that human evolution has pretty much ceased due to man's intervention in nature. Of the four things necessary for evolution (genetic variation, struggle for survival, differential survival and reproduction, and overpopulation of organisms), struggle for survival has been completely eliminated thanks to medicine and such. Where in the past someone with a weak immune system would have died at a young age, he can live a perfectly normal life and have children today.

But that's all pretty irrelevant so I'll just stop there.

Yes, and in the same way, in a few generations, there would be no organisms left with that specific trait that is he weak immune system, as they would all have died before being able to carry the gene.

[devonin]

brandonmcginnis: I'd already cleared several such religious posts from this thread under rule 5 which forbids the making of unfalsifiable claims. You've stated claims that are made in the bible, and in order to defend their validity have pointed to something else it says in the bible. Circular logic is invalid. You've made a clockmaker appeal, which holds at least a little bit of value, but misses one key point: If a can of paint fell over and spilled on a canvas, you have a painting, you even have a painter: the can of paint. What you don't have is intelligent directed purpose in creating that painting, but in today's world of ridiculous art fanciers, you can probably still sell it for millions. Point being? Effects needing causes in no way requires intelligent and deliberate causes.

Verruckter: Around here, saying "You don't know how to use this forum" pretty well constitutes flaming. Address points, not people if you're trying to claim a lack of valid points.

u84: I'm glad you respect everyone's opinions, but posting "I disagree" with no evidence except an appeal to an unfalsifiable belief system technically breaks two rules at once.

Brandon again: You highlighted the word "theory" like the mere presence of the word was a scathing condemnation. In science the word has a far different meaning than it does among us laymen. A Scientific Theory (capital S, capital T) is a hypothesis (which means the same thing most people mean when they say theory) that has been tested, repeatedly, and found to correspond to reality and to stand up to a reasonable deal of scrutiny. Neither you nor I are in a position to challenge such capital T Theory until we've done a few more years of study and education. And even though this isn't a discussion for this topic: Anyone who says "evolution means we came from monkeys" simply doesn't understand evolution. We and Monkeys came from a seperate and distinct common ancestor.

Ah, sniped by Relambrien.

The only reason I didn't delete even more of the posts dealing with religion in this thread, was that several of the responses were perfectly valid and reasonable, and the topic itself is too inappropriate for the forum to split off into its own thread.

brandonmcginnis, I stated earlier in the thread that this was not to try to turn into a religious discussion, that it was discussing only the scientifici ramifications of the Big bang theory. If you are going to insist on reintroducing unfalsifiable religious claims into it, we're going to have to ask you to leave.

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by devonin

Verruckter: Around here, saying "You don't know how to use this forum" pretty well constitutes flaming. Address points, not people if you're trying to claim a lack of valid points.

I would agree if my "attack" was unjustified.. but in this case, his fault was so obvious, it was in big, bold, red letters.

[devonin]

So point out how the claim had no basis in fact, and that in CT you aren't allowed to make claims with no basis in fact. This can be done without saying "You're an idiot, go away"

[Verruckter]

Originally Posted by devonin

So point out how the claim had no basis in fact, and that in CT you aren't allowed to make claims with no basis in fact. This can be done without saying "You're an idiot, go away"

Ah, alright

[Relambrien]

Thanks devonin, now you made it seem like I double-posted.

I wonder if perhaps we should make a compilation of some of the scientific terms often used in CT, like you did for religious terms. I've seen confusion on the definition of "theory" a few times, as well as other things, so it might help to clear up confusion.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by brandonmcginnis

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

None of your points have any evidence behind them, and your argument sounds like preaching. It's arrogant beyond belief to say that atheism isn't valid in the face of fact, especially when you didn't give a fact beforehand, but an illogical speculation. Please study the rules before you post in CT again.

Originally Posted by devonin

If a can of paint fell over and spilled on a canvas, you have a painting, you even have a painter: the can of paint.

But how did the can of paint come to being, and what caused it to spill?