God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[Mister Agenda]

The two commonly held opinions are “from nothing, God created everything” and “from nothing, the Big Bang created everything”. One is called “religion” and the other is called “scientific fact”, but both make the same claim.

Welcome to the forum. It's a bit more complicated than that, isn't it? There are more choices than one religion and one scientific hypothesis (the 'Big Bang' is a scientific fact, but there are several hypotheses as to what set it off). The former idea has a problem in that you can't really say there was nothing if God existed, and with the latter you can't really say 'nothing' is what 'banged'. The latter idea is saved by the fact that the science on what banged is still out, but it doesn't claim it was absolute nothingness. I've not heard anything closer to nothing than quantum foam as a Big Bang precursor.

This claim contradicts Einstein’s “truth” that “energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another”, but for the sake of exploring further, let’s ignore that.

Let's not. It's a fallacy of composition to assume that a rule that applies within the universe also applies to it. If a wall is made of unbreakable bricks, it doesn't mean the wall is unbreakable. Water is wet, but water molecules aren't. Also, the Big Bang theory only goes back to the point just as the universe began rapid expansion, it was in an enormously hot and dense state before that. There's no good reason to think that all the matter and energy in the universe wasn't already in the universe in its pre Big Bang state.

The “Big Bang” theory was proposed by physicists and astronomers and is based on the idea of “gravitational pressure” and how gravity interacts with “matter” and “antimatter”. It relies on “laws” of astrophysics and is said to describe the origins of all of reality.

The Big Bang theory gives us a comprehensive explanation for a variety of observed phenomena and allows us to make predictions that can be confirmed. The theory only describes the initital expansion of the universe and offers no explanation for the state of the universe before that point, except that it was incredibly small and enormously hot and dense. It also wouldn't describe all of reality in the sense that we don't know if other universes exist.

To try to get a better understanding of this “truth”, let’s explore the “scientific facts” about gravity. First, “little g”, or the observed “G-force”, was believed to be “constant” with regard to the “the law” of acceleration until it was realized that acceleration actually depends on mass size and distance, wherefore it cannot predict acceleration through space or on different planets. Due to this the “the law” was revised. From here, Newton’s “Big G” became “the law” as the “universal gravitational constant”. However, “Big G” has not actually been observed to be constant when measured. Further, it predicts that without an external force, two objects traveling along parallel paths will always remain parallel and never meet. Particles that start off on parallel paths, however, are sometimes observed to end up colliding. Due to this, the “the law” was revised and Einstein’s general relativity became “the law” stating those objects are still traveling along the straightest possible line, but due to a distortion in space-time, the straightest possible line is now along a spherical path. This, however, predicted that the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together, wherefore subsequent to the “Bang” the expansion of the universe should be observed to slow. This has not been observed, however, and instead, recent evidence confirms the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. To explain this, another revision is now necessary and a few theories have been proposed. What seems to be the common opinion now is that 96% of reality is actually unknown and undetectable substances called “dark matter” and “dark energy”. Making this assumption is said to be the only way to confirm general relativity is still a “scientific fact”.

You seem to have a problem with science correcting itself to account for new observations. Like someone who thinks a person who says the earth is spherical is just as wrong as someone who says it is flat; because it is actually an oblate spheroid. If you can see that someone who thinks the earth is spherical is less wrong than someone who thinks it is flat, science may be for you. If that makes you uncomfortable, you may find religion and faith to be better fits for your personality.

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”. The remaining 96% is some mysterious “other stuff” that we know nothing about. So much for getting clarification of truth through astrophysics.

If we can't know everything definitively and finally, knowing something approximately and provisionally is worthless, eh? Not from my point of view.

So, the truth about the material universe as presented by the scientific community and accepted by public opinion is obviously lacking, but it goes further. When observed on a smaller scale, “truth” becomes even more confusing. The matter supposedly created by the “Big Bang”, which evolved into the total of our material reality, has actually been observed to act as both matter and energy when viewed on a quantum level. It has further been observed to act in spooky and “entangled” ways that defy all our previous held “truths” of physics. Quantum physicists report evidence that particles can instantly communicate with each other, even when extremely far apart, that photons pop in and out of existence, and that the observer is actually an influential factor in the perception of matter. There is currently no commonly accepted theory that unifies the observations of astrophysics with quantum mechanics.

I am curious about atheist opinion on this...

There is no atheist opinion on this. Atheists usually have opinions on it, based on what sounds most plausible to them rather than on the premise God isn't an option. If there is a tendency for most Western atheists to defer to experts in the relevant fields, it is precisely because atheism has nothing to do with cosmology. It seems the most cosmology can possibly do regarding God is render God unnecessary as an explanation, which does not equate to no possible God existing at all.