God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[Alex K]

The two commonly held opinions are
[...]
Again, the “truth” about “Big Bang” and the evolution of the universe is currently relying upon the assumption that with all our technology, we are capable of only observing 4% of what “is”.
“truths” of physics.

As an "atheist" "quantum" "physicist", I find your "arguments" very.... "wanting". I'll address them "tomorrow"...

[Mister Agenda]

You're not here to learn. Obviously.

Why, because I don't just blindly accept what people tell me without convincing evidence? You're not here to debate, obviously.

Because you blindly accepted strawman versions of what the science actually says, which would be easily avoidable in this day and age if you were practicing real skepticism, which involves a little fact-checking.

You remind me of my father in this regard. He considers himself a skeptic, because he doesn't take the word of doctors that they're not suppressing an affordable cure for cancer. He does believe a TV huckster who claims tablets made from coral can cure cancer (and they're cheap, too!). I'm very glad he doesn't have cancer. But his skepticism isn't inversely proportionate to the likelihood of the claim, it's inversely proportional to how much the claim supports his view of the world; that is, the more it aligns with his view, the less skeptical he is of it, and the less it aligns with his view, the more skeptical he is of it. Since his view is Pentecostal, he believes a lot of weird stuff and is skeptical about a lot of stuff that is well-supported.

[The Valkyrie]

" God vs Big Bang- Are either correct? "

Yes: the Big Bang has evidence.

The other is a nonsense religious claim.

[Alex K]

" God vs Big Bang- Are either correct? "

Yes: the Big Bang has evidence.

The other is a nonsense religious claim.

Yeah... It's really silly to talk about the big bang as if there was no concrete hard evidence for it, as if it was some wildly speculative idea on par with anything you could make up on the spot. Much of that sentiment though seems to originate from a profound misunderstanding of what the theory actually says.

In any case, I don't see much direct relevance to the God question at all there, except that it closes some more gaps, as do most good theories. You already have to fudge your god around evolution and all of the other physics, the bbt just adds one more thing you have to tweak. Religion is intellectually empty: you can always say - but God made it so - and nothing is learned from it. No scientific theory can stop the believer fron doing meaningless gymnastics, and it is as pointless to argue concrete examples as it is pointless to nail jelly to the wall.

[pocaracas]

Couldn't read past this, as it seems you are headed to the big unknown, wanting to say something about what we don't know.
What is this "nothing" you speak of?
How do you know there was nothing "before" the big bang?
How do you know there was a "before" the big bang, if the big bang gave rise to space-time itself?
If there's no "before", then how was there "nothing"?

Just putting out there what seems to be the commonly held opinion? Is it yours?

The universe from nothing opinion is not the current scientific consensus.
Unless you do as Krauss does and call the quantum foam "nothing".
I think this just made his book sell like hot cakes and introduce a lot of confusion in the minds of those less educated in these themes.
Nevertheless, it's just speculation.
The reality of the matter is, "the scientific community does not know", meaning we have no way, at the moment, of accessing the required information.
One can speculate, however. The more convincing the speculation, the more traction that idea gains in the public's mind. But, without evidence, it remains a speculation.

And there is no evidence of space-time beyond the Universe... just as there's no evidence that there can't be space-time beyond the Universe, so any speculative guess that ends up using either option is an unfalsifiable possibility. As you can see, this is a gap of scientific knowledge that can be filled by anything anyone dreams of... and, with enough persuasion, that person can convince others that that dream represents reality.
Human psychology is so fallible that such a dream could then easily be propagated through the generations and end up with what we now call religion.

So, do you prefer to have an answer, any answer, regardless of how correct it may be? Or to remain knowingly ignorant and expectant until further information is actually available?

[Ryantology]

I am curious about atheist opinion on this...

My opinion is that no competing theory is superior to the Big Bang, and that's what I'll go with, until and unless something does a better job explaining the reality of how our universe began. I don't treat the Big Bang as untouchable canon of the universe, and I don't think many other atheists do, either.

If Christians can still believe that Christ is coming back next Thursday after 2000 years of next Thursdays, I can give Big Bang cosmology a few more decades to figure itself out.

[Alex K]

@Ryantology

One can argue about the details, and nothing is technically untouchable, but "the universe was very hot and dense 13.*** billion years ago" is damn close to.

[Ryantology]

Certainly. So are evolution and gravity theories, more or less.

I simply mean to point out that this is not a true comparison. True Beleeverz don't question God. We do reserve at least a little judgement even about the Big Bang, as long as there are still significant unanswered questions. And we should.

I don't reserve any of that judgement towards creationism. There's no truth or useful information to be had in Genesis 1-2 (or for any of the rest of it, for that matter).

[SteelCurtain]

This was so much more fun having read her intro thread first.

It seems, OP, that you have made the mistake of making some false assertions and then forming further assertions based on the original, faulty ones. I would advise you go read your OP again. In light of what you wrote in your intro thread, if you were being honest, you have to admit you made some pretty serious mistakes in regards to the initial premise of this thread.

[bennyboy]

@OP

Fuck off. How dare you come into the science section and put forth these ideas as though they are equal candidates? You are so clearly a Christian (or maybe muslim) poe, that I'm forced to ask-- don't you know that lies make baby Jesus cry?

I'll explain the difference in process: it's not that creationism or the Big Bang Theory are right or wrong. It's how people arrive at an interest in, or a belief in, either idea. The Big Bang was arrived at by seeing how the universe expands, and projecting that motion in reverse through time-- "Wait a minute, if everything's moving apart, it must have once been together." The idea of Creationism was arrived at by reading the Bible, already believing in God, and then making special pleas, unsupported assertions, and other obvious logical mistakes to arrive at the answer you wanted. If you did that to your taxes, you'd risk a healthy jail term. Luckily for you, you do it with ideas about the mythological figure of your choice, and you risk only mockery.

So here is me, mocking you.