God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[sswhateverlove]

---

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. 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. 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.

First off, the Big Bang doesn't say everything was created from a single point. It says everything can be tract back to a single point. How that single point came to be is not what the Big Bang model answers.

Second, the total energy in the universe is effectively 0. Gravity is negative energy.

Third, gravitational pressure, matter and antimatter have been observed, measured, and modeled outside the context of the Big Bang. Those laws of astrophysics can be found here on Earth.

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.

Actually, the gravitational constant G was measured a constant on the moon, mars, Jupiter, and anywhere we send a space craft like a satilite.

Further, it predicts that without an external force, two objects traveling along parallel paths will always remain parallel and never meet.

This is just flatly wrong.

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.

No, they generally don't follow a spherical path. You can setup the mass distribution and velocity to get a spherical path, it's called an orbit.

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”.

So your complaining that Science are updating their beliefs when they have more information? What is wrong with that? Plus, general relativity explains a SHIT LOAD of data that have nothing to do with dark mater and dark energy.

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.

The other 96% rarely affects the Earth and its inhabitants. If it had, we would of noticed it a lot sooner. Dark Energy's effect is only seen between galaxy clusters. Dark Matter's effects are only observed on galaxy scales. All the major and minor effects in the 4%. The 96% is insignificant to us.

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.

You're reading too many sensationalist crap when it comes to QM.

I am curious about atheist opinion on this...

First off, your understanding of astrophysics and QM is too simplified. And some it is just wrong.

Second and more important, your complaining that Science doesn't have all the answers and has some internal model disputes. So what? Science evolves with new data, and it will change to accomodate all the avaliable data. Just because scientist don't know how to resolve a problem now doesn't mean there isn't a solution.

Third, what is wrong with adjusting your views when you know more?

---

Ok, so in order to be confident in anything that science reveals, we need to try to control for all the possible variables? Correct? If now we are to assume that 96% of reality is a variable that is not controlled for and that we know nothing about, how do we have confidence in our methods and the assumptions we make based on them?