Problems with the Big Bang theory

[Dark Ronin]

I have struggled with theories for creation for one reason, because they all start with something. How can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningful word in creation theories? I find it totally illogical that nothing existed before creation. The best I can come up with for a pseudo nothing is two forces that cancel each other. Our existence must prove that absolute nothing is impossible?

[Grandiagod]

But then the question is "where did that something come from?"

Theories have arisen, but none can be truly proven or disproved until we have advanced a few more centuries with our science.

Short answer is: "We have guesses"

[Verruckter]

Most people seem to forget that the Big Bang theory isn't the only scientific possibility. Maybe there's something else that happened.

[NarutoFoxDemon]

As far us scientists think, we still have no idea. We have theories, but they're very vague, and we have no way to prove them. I myself believe in the Big Bang Theory.

[sjoecool1991]

Maybe the Big Bang did happen?
Maybe God did it.
Think about that now.


The Big Bang in no way contradicts Christianity.

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by sjoecool1991

Maybe the Big Bang did happen?
Maybe God did it.
Think about that now.


The Big Bang in no way contradicts Christianity.

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.

[devonin]

Sorry guys, I really hate to do it, but this thread has fallen victim to rule 5 (Not to be confused with GuildHunter's rule -of- 5)

5/ Unfalsifiable claims are not allowed. What this means is basically: No matter how strongly you choose to believe something, if that something cannot be proven or disproven, you cannot use it as evidence in discussions. As a practical rule it means that threads about religion are on very shaky ground. You can discuss religions and religious concepts to your heart's content provided you have proper evidence to back them up, but faith-based claims simply lead to flamewars, and juvenile "yes it is, no it isn't" back-and-forths that make everyone's day worse.

The creation of the universe, while fun to randomly theorize about, is entirely unfalsifiable at this point. Nobody in this discussion can actually provide real evidence to support any of the theories in a sufficiently reasonable way to make this anything other than a "God did it" "God couldn't do it"

Some notes:

Dark Ronin: If we keep this thread slanted from a totally scientific standpoint (IE. If we assume the big bang theory to be correct, how can we answer the question of what caused it etc etc, and explicitly state that religious alternatives are a no-no) I think we could get a great thread going

Go_Oilers_Go: Hate to break it to you but "it makes me feel better about my existence" isn't an especially good reason to decide to believe in God, even though that is, frankly, the reasoning that a large number of religious people use. You're doing what's called an Argument from Consequences, which is a logical fallacy that says in this case "Because the consequences of believing in the Big Bang theory upset me, I will not believe in it"

Hollus: Since christianity (the religion in question here) is pretty much based on the idea that the rules of the universe can be suspended on a whim (if you ask god very nicely) it does have that advantage when talking about creation, to answer problems with "Well, God can do anything" That's why we can't bring religious creation into these discussions except insofar as the religious claims are so vague and interpretable that they aren't contradicted by hard science. (IE. "7 days" as being longer than 24 hours each, because they are "God Days" not "People Days" to get around the fact of the planet being so old)

[Relambrien]

There was a set of parody definitions of atheism and Christianity (the atheism one referring specifically to the Big Bang and evolution) that I found quite entertaining, yet bluntly true. While the intricacies are most certainly not explored, the general idea is correct. Here's what I can remember from the atheism one.

Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and then nothing happened to nothing so that there was something and all the something by sheer chance arranged itself into gases and galaxies and, later, dinosaurs.

When you get right down to it, this is more or less the definition of the Big Bang. Originally, all the matter in the universe was condensed to a single point, then randomly exploded, and all the material by sheer chance managed to arrange and develop such that galaxies, solar systems, planets, and life were created.

But yeah, somehow I don't think we'll ever know precisely what happened. The value of something like the Big Bang theory is that it gives a plausible, though not certifiable, idea of what occurred. It helps us fill in the holes in history (the very first one, actually) with a tentative explanation until something better is found. Actually, that's how science in general works; use ideas and observation to develop plausible explanations for phenomena, and change or replace the explanations as better ones can be found.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

I have struggled with theories for creation for one reason, because they all start with something. How can anything come from nothing, is nothing a meaningful word in creation theories? I find it totally illogical that nothing existed before creation. The best I can come up with for a pseudo nothing is two forces that cancel each other. Our existence must prove that absolute nothing is impossible?

Well, to set the Big Bang Theory straight, it's a model of the universe describing the things that happened *after* the beginning. The theory itself can be entirely consistent without ever addressing what happened before the Big Bang, which is what you're talking about. Right now the Big Bang Theory does not address time before the Big Bang, because it's impossible to study (yet).

But right, the Big Bang requires a key ingredient; energy. There is a way around the problem though if you look at conservation of energy. You can't create it or destroy it. If you treat 'existence' as a system then the energy within that system will never change, and the Big Bang is simply a product of the very fact existence (energy) 'exists' in the first place.

We could simply be a different manifestation of what always existed. It doesn't answer the question of where it came from, but that question may not even merit an answer if it isn't a valid question in the first place. I wouldn't ask you, for example, where the duck got it's quasar because it doesn't make sense. Equally invalid might be asking where the inherent 'something' necessary for anything to exist in the first place came from.

For the time being though, we can only speculate based on the things we do know. However, there may be many more answers on the horizon!

[Grandiagod]

the big bang is pretty much tested.

We can observe universal expansion right now.

However, we don't know what caused it or where it came from, which is your question.

Most people assume the Big Bang is the theory that explains universal origin, it doesn't, just universal formation.

That's because most people never bother to bloody read up on what the hell they blabber about.

[jecht3009046]

Wow, this is maybe the most serious post(s) made by Grandia...

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

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, thus creating much of the universe that we know and see. It would be illogical to say that there was ever a time where no matter existed. A common theory is that time has been and will continue to be infinite (meaning there was never a begining and never will be an end). Conservation of matter, in that theory, would be an absolute law. All matter has always existed and always will. There has never been and never will be sudden materialization of matter from complete nothingness. There has ALWAYS been something, and it will continue to be that way. At no point was there nothingness. Never, ever, ever.

Now, if you choose to believe in creation by a superior being, then anything is possible. Sudden appearance of energy and matter, a beginning and end to time, you name it, he can do it. He can even make a square circle.

But keep in mind, conservation of matter is only a theory! It hasn't been proven yet. Though, I would love to see the person who chooses to dispute a near blatant truth.

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

Originally Posted by jecht3009046

All matter has always existed and always will. There has never been and never will be sudden materialization of matter from complete nothingness. There has ALWAYS been something, and it will continue to be that way. At no point was there nothingness. Never, ever, ever.

Well said.
But as we both know, this still brings up the question of how a "particle" could become so incredibly condensed. All of the pertaining theories i know of all seem a little silly, saying we don't even know the big bang even happened. (my guess is it did)

And even more mind-boggling is the question of where the first bit of matter came from. There is little point in guessing aside from entertaining oneself.

[jecht3009046]

Who ever said that everything has a beginning? Humans are born, as is almost everything we ever see. All people have ever seen is a beginning and end. It would be wrong to come to a conclusion using only your own ignorance as support. 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.

As for how matter can possibly get that small and condensed, look at black holes. The amount of gravitational force a black hole has is astronomical. Who's to say that a black hole like structure didn't emerge (possibly in a similar way that black holes do) that could contain nearly all matter and energy in the universe? Just because we have never seen it doesn't mean that it is impossible for it to have ever existed. It would actually be quite simple for all I just stated to happen. Black holes large enough to destroy our galaxy are present, so why not one that can contain the universe?

Though the Big Bang theory seems logical, it is incredibly hard to wrap one's mind around it. But then again, it is nothing compared to the stretch of believing in some supernatural being that dictates or created the universe. Where he come from? He didn't make himself, so he must have existed forever (unless somebody would like to put up an alternative, which I would be interested in hearing, for I cannot think of any). And if he existed forever, why couldn't matter and energy have existed forever?

Please excuse the use of the words "he, him, etc" indicating that any superior being is of the male gender. I suppose any word anybody could conceive would fit such a character all the same. Rofl at "god" being a man.

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

Yes, i suppose it is difficult to defy logic and reason.
It is natural to assume there has to be a beginning.
Suppose you are correct.
Perhaps the universe just IS.

Interesting though, how black holes ran through my mind before i read this. I did not relate them in my previous post because i do not have enough information on black holes as to back the strange theories related to them.

[devonin]

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.

Of course, this -still- doesn't explain necessarily what the very first event was (if any) in a very chicken/egg sort of thing, but at least you get one more step backwards in the infinite regress.

[Tokzic]

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]

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]

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]

You have an answer for everyones questions Reach

[jecht3009046]

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.

Originally Posted by jecht3009046

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.