Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

The current “theory” is that the universe came into being from some explosion called the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang theory does not match smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. So the theory of Inflation was added to the standard Big Bang. That is the latest conjecture of modern science.

Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science. It violates conservation of mass-energy. The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe. It violates cause and effect. Nothing never just explodes and becomes something. It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something. It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all. If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago. But that is not the case. Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.

I'll try a new approach of just critiquing and editing/revising what you have already written.


(Warning! Edited Version!)
Where did the universe come from and when did it originate? Science has evidence, data, and a scientific explanation for each of these.

The current scientific theory is that the universe came into being from a rapid expansion often referred to as "The Big Bang." The Big Bang theory was described before our observations of cosmic background radiation, that demonstrate both the validity of the claims made by the Big Bang theory, and the need for expanding those claims. Inflation of the universe as it continues to rapidly expand at an ever increasing rate, has been used in conjunction with the Big Bang theory. This is one of sciences latest (in the last half century or so) amendments to the theory of our universe.

Now, that I revised your "explanations" so that they actually make sense, let's move on to these "critiques" of yours.

Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe (only for religion it seems). If nothing existed before the Big Bang (that isn't what it says. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang theory also describes the beginning of time in the universe, meaning that there is no "before" the Big Bang. Your strawman is bad.), then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science (No, it actually doesn't). It violates conservation of mass-energy (no, it actually doesn't. It describes the expansion and does not postulate from where it came from. It indicates that all the mass and energy of the universe, have always existed.). The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe (Still no. It doesn't matter how many times you say that.). It violates cause and effect (causality breaks down when you approach 0 time, aka the beginning of time.). Nothing never just explodes and becomes something (Do what?). It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something (repetition again <-see what I did there?). It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe (Those are observations my friend. But you are correct, it doesn't explain how they came to be. This still goes back to the point that even if you could disprove science, it doesn't make religion correct by default.).

If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all ("before the Big Bang" makes no sense. There is no time before 0.). If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago (You don't understand thermodynamics. ). But that is not the case (hey, here is something that does not need editing or revising. ). Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe(yet more repetition.).

Just because you say time started at the Big Bang, does not get around the violation of the laws and principles of science. It does show that this dance around does indeed admit that the Big Bang violates the laws and principles of science.

Thus it is rejected.