God vs Big Bang- Are either correct?

[sswhateverlove]

Ok, so in order to be confident in anything that science reveals, we need to try to control for all the possible variables? Correct?

No. I don't need to know anything about the strong nuclear force or electromagnetic radiation to know that adding heat to liquid water will make it boil. A construction worker doesn't need to know the world is spherical to build a road.

As my examples demonstrate, the precision you want determines which variables you need to control. I can reach 95% or 99.99999% on a lot of things science has already discovered. 100% confidence is statistically impossible.

I agree that there are some things that we can learn from doing experiments that have uncontrolled variables and that learning those things is obviously beneficial for navigating our world. However, with regard to trying to understand the nature of reality, the uncontrollable variables seem very important.

Why does it matter? Why do I care? With regard to the bother of pondering such things, Tyson said the question becomes "How big of a Universe do you want to live in? Some like it small, and that's fine; understandable. But I like it big." I do too

---

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.

You've got a grasp on the religious belief, but your understanding of how science approaches knowledge is badly lacking. There might be a crackpot theory out there that states that "from nothing, the Big Bang created everything" but it's not taken any more seriously than "from nothing, God created everything." Scientific theories about how the universe began are just that-- theories. Religious claims about how the universe began are just that-- horseshit.

I agree.

---

My point exactly.

So your point is what we've been saying all along? Because originally your point seemed to be that religion and science agree that everything came from nothing. Now that we've repeatedly pointed out the science doesn't claim that and all that is known of the origin of the universe in absolute terms is that it was once in a very small, very hot, very dense state before the intitial expansion, and we don't know how long it was like that, if it was like that forever, if it had an origin, if it appeared just a moment before the BB from a quantum fluctuation, if it's banged before or this was the first time, we just don't know...and it's been like pulling teeth to get you here...that's your point exactly?

My point is that neither explanation has been a very good one. That's all.

---

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.

Is it also strawman that you assume my position is like your father's? I would say I wouldn't have blind faith in any of it. It's unfortunate too, because as someone who understands the principles of psychoneuroimmunology (study of stuff such as the placebo effect), it is likely that the belief does influence the ability of the remedy to work. Doesn't work for me though, I'm too skeptical.

---

" God vs Big Bang- Are either correct? "

Yes: the Big Bang has evidence.

The other is a nonsense religious claim.

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.

I feel like I should start getting all worked up about this poster assuming to know my perspective on "god" and that I'm trying to argue in favor of "god".

Can I play that game too? Strawman! Strawman! Strawman!

---

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?

Tyson said the question becomes "How big of a Universe do you want to live in? Some like it small, and that's fine; understandable. But I like it big." I do too, therefore I, personally, claim I am humbly ignorant with regard to "truth" and hope to someday have more information. It's fun to be in awe anyway.

---

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.

I agree that the big bang is a much more logical theory, but I don't like the fact that the supporting evidence regarding what is being observed in the universe is constantly not as predicted and the laws are being rewritten to support the original ideas when there may be times we need to reconsider things from their foundational principles.

---

@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.

Most astrophysicists admit that they are humbly ignorant with regard to the truth about our universe. Specifically, very recently they had to completely revise their opinions regarding the expansion of the universe and in doing so had to add in that 96% of reality is now stuff called "dark matter" and "dark energy" that we know nothing about other than than it now makes sense what we're observing.

---

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.

Care to elaborate? If I'm making false assertions, I'm interested in knowing what they are. I specifically asked for feedback which includes clarifications if my assertions are flawed. Care to give it?

[SteelCurtain]

Care to elaborate? If I'm making false assertions, I'm interested in knowing what they are. I specifically asked for feedback which includes clarifications if my assertions are flawed. Care to give it?

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.

It is pretty clear that this initial premise is patently false. The idea "from nothing, the Big Bang created everything" is not only a strawman fabrication oft used by the religious (hence why many here assumed that was your argument, and why the intro thread is so important), but is strays so far away from scientific consensus that to call it "scientific fact" and move on as if that is a given was a blunder. This initial statement undermines everything you said afterwards.

[Surgenator]

No. I don't need to know anything about the strong nuclear force or electromagnetic radiation to know that adding heat to liquid water will make it boil. A construction worker doesn't need to know the world is spherical to build a road.

As my examples demonstrate, the precision you want determines which variables you need to control. I can reach 95% or 99.99999% on a lot of things science has already discovered. 100% confidence is statistically impossible.

I agree that there are some things that we can learn from doing experiments that have uncontrolled variables and that learning those things is obviously beneficial for navigating our world. However, with regard to trying to understand the nature of reality, the uncontrollable variables seem very important.

You seem to think we have to control these other effects (like physically turn them on/off). This is not the case. We can do experiments on unknowns by already compensating for the effects that are known. This is how we discovered a lot things from like plants breathing oxygen and dark matter. I'm willing to wager that this is how most things are discovered in science these days.

Dark matter and dark energy are important to understanding the nature of reality. There level of importance depends on the specific question your asking. If your asking why entanglement occurs, dark matter and dark energy are not relevant to the answer. If your asking how the universe began, they are very relevant.

Why does it matter? Why do I care? With regard to the bother of pondering such things, Tyson said the question becomes "How big of a Universe do you want to live in? Some like it small, and that's fine; understandable. But I like it big." I do too

I don't think I asked this question. And I also like to understand the universe I'm living for curiosity's sake.

[sswhateverlove]

Care to elaborate? If I'm making false assertions, I'm interested in knowing what they are. I specifically asked for feedback which includes clarifications if my assertions are flawed. Care to give it?

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.

It is pretty clear that this initial premise is patently false. The idea "from nothing, the Big Bang created everything" is not only a strawman fabrication oft used by the religious (hence why many here assumed that was your argument, and why the intro thread is so important), but is strays so far away from scientific consensus that to call it "scientific fact" and move on as if that is a given was a blunder. This initial statement undermines everything you said afterwards.

I was simply making the point that both seem to be lacking, which it seems others agree with. No argument there.

---

Dark matter and dark energy are important to understanding the nature of reality. There level of importance depends on the specific question your asking. If your asking why entanglement occurs, dark matter and dark energy are not relevant to the answer. If your asking how the universe began, they are very relevant.

I guess that's my point, with such a limited understanding of "dark matter" and "dark energy", how does one conclude that it's not relevant? If it's 96% of our reality, how can one be sure it does not influence those things that we are trying to learn about? How do you know it's not an important variable?

[SteelCurtain]

I was simply making the point that both seem to be lacking, which it seems others agree with. No argument there.

Our point is that these are not the two commonly held beliefs. One may be commonly held, the other is not. You started out your entire post by making a statement that is patently false, and then built your entire argument off that statement. You were positing that the Big Bang Theory postulates a 'before' state, and you were very wrong. Why create a strawman argument that no one believes to be true if you didn't think that's what we believed it was?

You are losing a slice of credibility here.

[Surgenator]

I was simply making the point that both seem to be lacking, which it seems others agree with. No argument there.

The amount of evidence lacking for the God theory is significantly larger than the Big Bang theory. That is what everyone is trying to point out.

---

Dark matter and dark energy are important to understanding the nature of reality. There level of importance depends on the specific question your asking. If your asking why entanglement occurs, dark matter and dark energy are not relevant to the answer. If your asking how the universe began, they are very relevant.

I guess that's my point, with such a limited understanding of "dark matter" and "dark energy", how does one conclude that it's not relevant?

Simple, when does it need to be included as part of your theory to explain the results. I don't need DM to explain how you get quantum entanglement works or to make accurate predictions.

If it's 96% of our reality, how can one be sure it does not influence those things that we are trying to learn about? How do you know it's not an important variable?

If I can explain the results without using it, then its influence is negligible.

[sswhateverlove]

I was simply making the point that both seem to be lacking, which it seems others agree with. No argument there.

Our point is that these are not the two commonly held beliefs. One may be commonly held, the other is not. You started out your entire post by making a statement that is patently false, and then built your entire argument off that statement. You were positing that the Big Bang Theory postulates a 'before' state, and you were very wrong. Why create a strawman argument that no one believes to be true if you didn't think that's what we believed it was?

You are losing a slice of credibility here.

Ok, so your belief regarding public opinion may be different than mine. Not surprising, we probably have very different social circles.

I stand corrected if that's not the commonly held opinion here. How was I to know that without putting it out there and asking for feedback?

[Cyberman]

I think it's to do with the approach to the wording. It might have been more profitable to put it out there in the form of asking for our opinions, rather than stating them. As you'll have gathered, that approach tends to rub people's fur the wrong way.

[sswhateverlove]

I was simply making the point that both seem to be lacking, which it seems others agree with. No argument there.

The amount of evidence lacking for the God theory is significantly larger than the Big Bang theory. That is what everyone is trying to point out.

---

I guess that's my point, with such a limited understanding of "dark matter" and "dark energy", how does one conclude that it's not relevant?

Simple, when does it need to be included as part of your theory to explain the results. I don't need DM to explain how you get quantum entanglement works or to make accurate predictions.

If it's 96% of our reality, how can one be sure it does not influence those things that we are trying to learn about? How do you know it's not an important variable?

If I can explain the results without using it, then its influence is negligible.

"Results" in science imply correlation, not causation. Often causation is assumed with these results which is not accurate unless all other variables are controlled for. Unknown variables could very well be involved with causation of our perceived correlations. We cannot know for sure.

[Cyberman]

That's why experiments are designed to eliminate ambiguity as much as might be possible.