I know you haven't got any otherworldy evidence of any life anywhere else... so no!
ps. Make that hard evidence.
Big Bang Evidence for God
- Thread starter arauca
- Start date
I know you haven't got any otherworldy evidence of any life anywhere else... so no!
ps. Make that hard evidence.
You know... no scientist today might believe that... which is hard to think... but there is such a thing as punctuated equilibrium which is totally an idea within mainstream. You know we have tried to create life in the lab by recreating the conditions thought to be existent in the primordial sea... but we have never made the enzymes required for life? Maybe Hoyle wasn't too far off the mark... maybe it could be a once in a history opportunity which has been transported from planet to planet via panspermia?
Not completely outside of the factor never mind the box.
Mazulu:
The Genesis story is just the sort of story you'd expect from people who did not have the benefit of that extra 3 or 4 thousand years of additional scientific knowledge that we are privileged to have access to. Anybody could make up a just-so story similar to the one in Genesis, given about 10 minutes or so.
I realise that modern physics may confuse you, and you might find it "wacko", but that is coming from somebody who has obviously not benefitted from an education in science. Instead of casting your judgments on something you so obviously do not understand, you would be better off taking a humbler approach by trying to learn something about the theories you are so blindly criticising.
Your claim that "physicists have nothing..." is an empty one. For example, "all that energy" is a mistake. The net energy of the universe as a whole may very well be zero.
You're right about the second part. Most people are ignorant and are willing to believe all kinds of nonsense rather than getting an education. It's not always their own fault, but in your case I suspect it is. You have access to information and people who can teach you, yet you have no desire to learn.
Stuff happens for no apparent reason all the time in quantum physics. Particles pop in and out of existence, energies fluctuate, atoms decay at random, and so on. Face it: our universe has randomness built in at the most fundamental level.
I can't see any criticisms from you that give the tiniest hint that you know anything of the science of the big bang. If you have criticisms of the actual physics, please post them and I'll happily take a look. But if the best you can say is "I don't understand the physics, so God must have done it" then please take a little time to apologise to all of your readers here for your arrogance in assuming you're somehow qualified to discuss this subject as science.
I don't think you get it. There was no "where" for it to come from.
Why do you assume that something must have caused the big bang?
While we're at it, perhaps you can help me on a religious matter. What caused your God to come into existence?
The Genesis story is just the sort of story you'd expect from people who did not have the benefit of that extra 3 or 4 thousand years of additional scientific knowledge that we are privileged to have access to. Anybody could make up a just-so story similar to the one in Genesis, given about 10 minutes or so.
I realise that modern physics may confuse you, and you might find it "wacko", but that is coming from somebody who has obviously not benefitted from an education in science. Instead of casting your judgments on something you so obviously do not understand, you would be better off taking a humbler approach by trying to learn something about the theories you are so blindly criticising.
Your claim that "physicists have nothing..." is an empty one. For example, "all that energy" is a mistake. The net energy of the universe as a whole may very well be zero.
You're right about the second part. Most people are ignorant and are willing to believe all kinds of nonsense rather than getting an education. It's not always their own fault, but in your case I suspect it is. You have access to information and people who can teach you, yet you have no desire to learn.
Stuff happens for no apparent reason all the time in quantum physics. Particles pop in and out of existence, energies fluctuate, atoms decay at random, and so on. Face it: our universe has randomness built in at the most fundamental level.
I can't see any criticisms from you that give the tiniest hint that you know anything of the science of the big bang. If you have criticisms of the actual physics, please post them and I'll happily take a look. But if the best you can say is "I don't understand the physics, so God must have done it" then please take a little time to apologise to all of your readers here for your arrogance in assuming you're somehow qualified to discuss this subject as science.
I don't think you get it. There was no "where" for it to come from.
Why do you assume that something must have caused the big bang?
While we're at it, perhaps you can help me on a religious matter. What caused your God to come into existence?
Well.. maybe not so much random in the inherent sense... maybe in the sense that we cannot extract all the information about a system which is completely within the parameters of quantum mechanics. After all, with a world where uncertainty exists, there needs to be a little bit of ignorance about the doings of the universe. Everything however could very well be written into the fabric of spacetime itself.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
First, just because science has not yet figured out how the BB could (spontaneously) occur, you do not get to claim the answer without the same proof you demand of science.
But, before you start ridiculing David Bohm, why don't you read up on him just a little.
http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html
That is a false argument. The scriptural god is rejected because it was proven that Norse gods and every other description of god(s) was wrong! Again, because every theist has been wrong, does not mean you get to claim a different version without proof.
It is you who has invented something from nothing. In fact you even have to qualify your "theory" by invoking a "supernatural" condition. Will you figure that one out for me?
Clearly, the big bang is proof that you can get something from nothing, as if by magic. How wondrous!
Since the Big Bang is not about the origin of the universe, then no, that's not true. The Big Bang starts with a singularity, but the theory does not try to cover where it may have come from. What you're wanting to discuss is the various theories in cosmogony...wait, I already covered this twice, and you still haven't even bothered to go there. I guess it's easier to attack a theory based on something it doesn't even cover.
Your answer got me to thinking of how the most "surreal" wonders of nature, from particle creation/annihilation to black hole formation, are still natural. Long ago these would have been considered supernaturally caused, along with everything else. Beside the fact that "cause" for the Big Bang is precluded by its emergence from a static condition (assuming time was only then created), it's not that far from the known particle annihilation-creation sequences to conclude that a Big Bang is purely natural, if only too distant and singular to know, in the way everyday phenomena are.
The point I would tie in with what you're saying is that none of this particularly matters from the point of cosmogony, since even agnostic atheism is far more logically correct a position than one that arbitrarily assigns the most profound wonders of nature to the oral traditions of an ancient superstitious cult.
I'm sure one of your ancestors gave a two minute version of Genesis to your tribe. The tribesmen were so bored and disappointed by it that they joined someone else's tribe.
Who are you talking about? I'm not confused by Modern Physics. Clearly you don't know what Modern Physics is. Modern physics emerged when we realized that classical physics and Newtonian physics were not accurate enough when describing velocities approaching c and sizes less then a nanometer. If you had the perception skill of a one-eyed deaf man, you would realize that I'm not ignorant of science, I am disappointed by it. Please attack my real position, not some straw man delusion you have about me. Also, I never said that "physicists have nothing...", so once again you're attacking a straw-man.
I've been saying all along that the net energy of the universe is zero.
In your defense, it may yet take decades and centuries for science to discover the existence of other universes and how they can interact with our universe via the predictability of eigenstates. In other words, the string theorist elitists still fluff their blazing egos. Egomaniacs of the scientific community hide the fact that they cannot predict which eigenstate will come next. They hide the fact that scientific knowledge begins with the birth of the universe, but have no idea why there is a universe at all. With swollen egos you strut about carelessly saying, "we are the scientific authority: there is no afterlife, only dirt and maggots. All your hope is schizophrenia and madness."
From your point of view. CNN news reports events but cannot predict them. From their point of view, events cannot be predicted. But those who make the events happen, the terrorists, the shooters, political leaders, the military, they decide what events happen next.
Come back when you (the scientific community) invent a profound new capability, something that can truly revolutionize the world, like the industrial revolution and the invention of the computer. Don't make me wait a google of years for the next big bang (sarcasm). Invent the gravity drive before humanity dies out.
Magical thinking.
Long ago, there was nothingness, so nothingnessly nothing, that nothing could even begin to describe the nothingnessness. Then, bang!!!! A something appeared! A great and violent somethingness appeared from the nothingnessness. And so it was.
If universes can big bang from the nothingnessness, then surely so can God appear out of nothingness. It is called the: Principle of Somethingness from Nothingnessness.
No, that isn't what the big bang said. This kind of nonsense is spouted by religious nuts all too often because they don't bother to find out what the science actually says. The BBM says that about 13.7 billion years ago the universe was very small, very dense and very hot. It expanded, undergoing inflation, symmetry breaking and nucleosynthesis and then cooled, superclusters began to form around initial mass perturbations and eventually stellar structures like galaxies and stars began to form. The BBM doesn't have anything to say about what happened at or perhaps before the start of the universe, just as evolution has nothing to say about how life got started. What happened at or before is unknown.
It isn't saying something arose from nothing, it has nothing to say about the matter. Ideas have been considered whereby the space-time we reside within was formed from a larger space-time (or more fundamental construct). This would mean that although our space and time have only finite extent the larger universe might not have such a restriction. Of course one could say "But where did that larger universe come from?" but perhaps it doesn't have a cause. If this supra-universe is eternal it might not need a cause.
But this is all speculation. The BBM is, however, not speculation as it made testable (and verified) predictions. But your claim it means the universe came from nothing, as if by magic, is a gross misrepresentation of what the model actually says.
Remember how one of the 10 commandments is not to bear false witness? Well you're bearing false witness about scientists' work right now.
That's the spirit, why bother to find out what people actually say when it is so much easier to just lie about them because you're too ignorant, lazy and dishonest to follow a commandment from your deity. Does your god want you to lie about science? Is bearing false witness something he's said you can do? The fact you reach for exaggerations and strawmen rather than discuss what the BBM actually says shows you aren't a very honest person. Is it okay to lie, if it is to try to convert people to your faith? Do the 10 commandments not apply if you're trying to convert people to Christianity?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So you invented a magical god. How wondrous!
What do you know about the properties of "nothing"? What is a vacuum? Is it static?
What is a "dynamic zero state"? Is it static?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Oh, and it takes no swollen ego to strut about carelessly saying, "we are the spiritual authority: there is an afterlife, but only for the believer. For the unbeliever there is only hell".
I must admit it takes a swollen ego to claim things for which no evidence exist at all. Some are treated for this medical condition.
Let assume my grand son ask me how the universe started . My reply should be "The BBM says that about 13.7 billion years ago the universe was very small, very dense and very hot. It expanded, undergoing inflation," Question: how small , like football stadium ? rep. I don't know scientist don't know it. Q: how hot was it , where does the heat come from to make hot ? rep. I don't know . Into what did it expand , did they buy the houses around ? It expanded into so big , tha we have all the stars our world with the sun and million of galaxy were in each galaxy are billion of sun , and we are continually expanding . ( If I would be my grans son I would say dad you are pulling my leg) O yes son we have proof we are expanding , one of the proof is the red shit , it well us every thing is moving away , Dad but how come my teacher says our galaxy and an other galaxy are moving closer to each other in curse of collision .
Now you tell does that doesn't sound like fairy tail ?
Since we don't know is it not more easy to say God made it . instead feeding a lot of BS
Arauca, the BBT is the prevailing theory because it fits the observations of the universe best. Look it up on wiki to get more details, where you say we don't know, actually we do know a lot.
To answer your point on galaxies receding but nearer ones moving closer, that is because spacial expansion is additive. For relatively nearby objects such as the Andromeda galaxy, its motion towards us is far greater than the amount of expansion between it and the Milky Way. But the much greater space between us and the farther galaxies means that we see them recede at greater and greater speeds the farther out we go. This correlation between red shift and distance was actually known before the BBT was developed, and it's just one of many observations that match what we'd expect to find.
To answer your point on galaxies receding but nearer ones moving closer, that is because spacial expansion is additive. For relatively nearby objects such as the Andromeda galaxy, its motion towards us is far greater than the amount of expansion between it and the Milky Way. But the much greater space between us and the farther galaxies means that we see them recede at greater and greater speeds the farther out we go. This correlation between red shift and distance was actually known before the BBT was developed, and it's just one of many observations that match what we'd expect to find.
Sr. I will not argue about theory , but for common sense it is ridicules . We can set a theory and then to work on experiment to fit rhe theory it is done frequent in the food and drug industry
(emphasis added)
I break my silence for a pedantic quibble. There are two creation stories in the first chapters of the book of Genesis.
A: Genesis Chapter One, Verse One through Chapter Two, Verse Three.
B: Genesis Chapter Chapter Two, Verse Four through Chapter Two, Verse Twenty-Five
A: Heaven and Earth, then Light, then Dark, then a Solid "Firmament", then dry land, then land plants, then sun, moon and stars (but not distant galaxies or stars in our galaxy hidden from view), then fish, whales and birds, then land animals and ants, then mankind (man and woman), then signed over all of creation to mankind (man and woman), end of story.
B: Heaven and Earth, then man, then land plants -- including a special garden with a special tree, then God gave man responsibility for the garden and a command not to eat the special tree. Then woman was created as a subordinate worker for man, and had happy naked time.
The two stories are unalike in details and tone. They blatantly contradict each other on the position of man in the universe and in relationship to God and in the details of the order of creation. There is no segue to explain why story B exists if story A ends with a declaration that creation was "finished."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html
The Bible isn't a science textbook -- it's not even a competently edited narrative.
In my view I don't take chapter 2 into account, Chapter one finishes the job of creation I believe chapter 2 is like a metaphor.
I agree the bible is not a science book , but it is hard to explain how did this people in the antiquity got the information of chapter one . You have there an evolutionary process written in a vety simple way.