God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[FatAndFaithless]

No, it's not a commonly held opinion, it's your fantasy of what science says. Stop. Creating. Strawmen. It's possibly the most annoying thing you can do on a forum like this. We have smart people here, ask us what we believe, don't tell us.

Ok, if you think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. What do you believe is the currently held opinion in science with regard to the origins of the universe?

---

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Nobody here holds those opinions, either, and yet, you appear to want to argue with us as if we do.

Oh, and thanks - I really appreciate you telling me that I don't have to participate in your threads. Seriously dude, I'm an administrator on staff here. I'm trying to improve *your* experience here. You can start by ceasing to argue against positions that nobody holds.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm asking what people's perspectives are on some new revelations of science and how it influences their confidence in their position. BTW, imo your're not doing a good job of improving my experience here by being insulting.

Takes 10 seconds to google man...
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/

To take the first snippet

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

The big bang theory says nothing about what was before the big bang, nobody says that the big bang "created everything out of nothing". I'd use the word strawman but it's already been used so often in your threads..

[sswhateverlove]

Ok, if you think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. What do you believe is the currently held opinion in science with regard to the origins of the universe?

---

I'm not trying to argue. I'm asking what people's perspectives are on some new revelations of science and how it influences their confidence in their position. BTW, imo your're not doing a good job of improving my experience here by being insulting.

Takes 10 seconds to google man...
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/

To take the first snippet

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

The big bang theory says nothing about what was before the big bang, nobody says that the big bang "created everything out of nothing". I'd use the word strawman but it's already been used so often in your threads..

Ok, I appreciate your clarification. It is not claimed that it started as nothing, from what you posted I now understand it is believed to have started as something extremely small that existed in it's smallness for all the time prior to the bang and then just "banged" with no cause. Am I correct now?

[Jackalope]

Ok, I appreciate your clarification. It is not claimed that it started as nothing, from what you posted I now understand it is believed to have started as something extremely small that existed in it's smallness for all the time prior to the bang and then just "banged" with no cause. Am I correct now?

No.

You're still strawmanning what happened before the big bang. We don't know anything about the state of anything prior to that, and so it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that we know anything about it's causality.

[Surgenator]

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?

[sswhateverlove]

Ok, I appreciate your clarification. It is not claimed that it started as nothing, from what you posted I now understand it is believed to have started as something extremely small that existed in it's smallness for all the time prior to the bang and then just "banged" with no cause. Am I correct now?

No.

You're still strawmanning what happened before the big bang. We don't know anything about the state of anything prior to that, and so it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that we know anything about it's causality.

My point exactly.

[TaraJo]

Ok, I appreciate your clarification. It is not claimed that it started as nothing, from what you posted I now understand it is believed to have started as something extremely small that existed in it's smallness for all the time prior to the bang and then just "banged" with no cause. Am I correct now?

The only one who has said that the big bang came from nothing has been you.

There's a huge difference between saying we don't know what was before the big bang and saying that there was nothing before the big bang.

This is just god of the gaps, folks. He's saying science is wrong because science doesn't know something. And in another 50 or so years, when we do find out what was before the big bang, he'll find the next thing science still doesn't know and claim science is wrong because science can't explain this other phenomenon. This isn't anything new to any of us; religious people have been using god of the gaps since the dawn of civilization. The difference is, we should know better now.

[ShaMan]

You're not here to learn. Obviously.

[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?

[ShaMan]

If now we are to assume...

(excerpt)

You're the only one making assumptions.

[sswhateverlove]

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.