Big Bang Theory Primer

[Polymath257]

Wow, talk about a huge assumption.

Not really.

First of all, this is what happens when we apply the best description of gravity (general relativity) to the universe as a whole. If you want to suggest a different theory of gravity, you will have your work cut out for you. This doesn't mean nobody has tried. But none have agreed with the observations.

Second, this is verified by the specifics of how red-shifts vary with distances. The GR equations make very specific predictions, especially in a flat space with cosmological constant. These predictions have been verified.

Third, there are other relativistic effects that distinguish between 'things moving through space' and 'space itself expanding'. For example, the timing of events in distant galaxies (like the expansion rate of a supernova) have to be linked in very specific ways to the amount of red-shift seen in those galaxies. Again, detailed tests related to those differences support the 'space expanding scenario'.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not really.

First of all, this is what happens when we apply the best description of gravity (general relativity) to the universe as a whole. If you want to suggest a different theory of gravity, you will have your work cut out for you. This doesn't mean nobody has tried. But none have agreed with the observations.

Second, this is verified by the specifics of how red-shifts vary with distances. The GR equations make very specific predictions, especially in a flat space with cosmological constant. These predictions have been verified.

Third, there are other relativistic effects that distinguish between 'things moving through space' and 'space itself expanding'. For example, the timing of events in distant galaxies (like the expansion rate of a supernova) have to be linked in very specific ways to the amount of red-shift seen in those galaxies. Again, detailed tests related to those differences support the 'space expanding scenario'.

Well, like sayakh83 said,
"God could have created everything 5 minutes ago with all our memories artificially implanted (along with all our convictions and memories) and we would not know."

You also assume that there was no Creator or Deity who intervened before, during or after the big bang.

So how can you be so sure?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you and your fellow scientists are all assuming that everything started at ground zero with the big bang and therefore all of your thinking is derived from that assumption.

No. Exactly backwards. We assume the description of gravity we have that has been tested in numerable ways also applies to the universe as a whole. When this is done, the BB scenario comes about mathematically. it also makes very specific predictions about things like red-shifts, compositions, and nature of the background radiation that can be tested.

If there was a Creator I doubt seriously He would have created everything in its pristine state with it taking billions of years for the light from one star to reach the nearest stars. That doesn't make sense.

Thereby making any information we find irrelevant to determining the past. Sorry, this is a version of 'Last Thursdayism' and should be rejected for exactly the same reason.

That's why you can't accept the idea of a Creator who created 10,000 years ago. Your point of view and therefore your thinking is stuck in the assumption of the big bang theory. In order to approach it scientifically and impartially you must get the big bang theory out of your head and stop being so set in your way of thinking.

No, the BB has NOTHING to do with the rejection of this position. We reject it because it essentially says that the evidence available lies. We look at the evidence and use that to determine what is true. The BB scenario was proposed because the theory of *gravity* says very specific things when applied to the universe as a whole. THAT is where the BB scenario came from. And, we do continue to test the assumptions based in general relativity, thermodynamics, particle physics, etc as applied to the early universe.

But, yes, definitely, we make the assumption that we can learn about the past using evidence from the present. Anything else is to leave the path of reason and logic.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, like sayakh83 said,
"God could have created everything 5 minutes ago with all our memories artificially implanted (along with all our convictions and memories) and we would not know."

Exactly. And we should reject such a scenario as being against both reason and logic. Do you seriously think @sayak83 scenario should be given any weight? Why not?

You also assume that there was no Creator or Deity who intervened before, during or after the big bang.

So how can you be so sure?

Lack of specific evidence for such intervention. Ultimately, the evidence is what determines truth. Playing the 'Last Thursday' game or the 'Matrix' game just shows your lack of any reasonable alternative.

 

[DavidFirth]

No. Exactly backwards. We assume the description of gravity we have that has been tested in numerable ways also applies to the universe as a whole. When this is done, the BB scenario comes about mathematically. it also makes very specific predictions about things like red-shifts, compositions, and nature of the background radiation that can be tested.


Thereby making any information we find irrelevant to determining the past. Sorry, this is a version of 'Last Thursdayism' and should be rejected for exactly the same reason.



No, the BB has NOTHING to do with the rejection of this position. We reject it because it essentially says that the evidence available lies. We look at the evidence and use that to determine what is true. The BB scenario was proposed because the theory of *gravity* says very specific things when applied to the universe as a whole. THAT is where the BB scenario came from. And, we do continue to test the assumptions based in general relativity, thermodynamics, particle physics, etc as applied to the early universe.

But, yes, definitely, we make the assumption that we can learn about the past using evidence from the present. Anything else is to leave the path of reason and logic.

Well, it is because of your bias against the possibility of the Creator that you have taken this point of view. And that is the problem with most scientists in general. They approach everything with this same bias.

 

[DavidFirth]

Exactly. And we should reject such a scenario as being against both reason and logic. Do you seriously think @sayak83 scenario should be given any weight? Why not?



Lack of specific evidence for such intervention. Ultimately, the evidence is what determines truth. Playing the 'Last Thursday' game or the 'Matrix' game just shows your lack of any reasonable alternative.

Well, as far as I'm concerned the evidence does exist that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That was certainly not a secular event because it defies physical logic.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, it is because of your bias against the possibility of the Creator that you have taken this point of view. And that is the problem with most scientists in general. They approach everything with this same bias.

No, it *isn't* a bias against a creator. It is a bias in favor of testable ideas.

Do *you* really think it is a reasonable solution to say every could have been created 5 minutes ago with all of our memories? Do you *really* think that needs to be given any serious consideration? If not, how is saying it happened 10,000 years ago any different?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, as far as I'm concerned the evidence does exist that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That was certainly not a secular event because it defies physical logic.

Considering even Biblical scholars disagree on this, the possibility is *way* down on my list of things to think about.

 

[DavidFirth]

No, it *isn't* a bias against a creator. It is a bias in favor of testable ideas.

Do *you* really think it is a reasonable solution to say every could have been created 5 minutes ago with all of our memories? Do you *really* think that needs to be given any serious consideration? If not, how is saying it happened 10,000 years ago any different?

All I'm saying is that you can be certain of nothing. To think that all of your theories are correct is a huge assumption.

 

[DavidFirth]

Considering even Biblical scholars disagree on this, the possibility is *way* down on my list of things to think about.

Well, I don't care about that. There is evidence and around 2.2 billion people believe it did happen.

 

[Polymath257]

All I'm saying is that you can be certain of nothing. To think that all of your theories are correct is a huge assumption.

Yes, it is an assumption that the real world exists and isn't a figment of our imagination. It is an assumption that we can learn about the real world through our senses and the use of logic. It is an assumption that the evidence we can find today gives information about the past.

if you seriously reject any of these, I seriously question your sanity, though.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I don't care about that. There is evidence and around 2.2 billion people believe it did happen.

Mostly because they have been raised with those ideas or because they have been lied to by the promoters of such ideas. Most people never get anywhere close to actual evidence.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, it is an assumption that the real world exists and isn't a figment of our imagination. It is an assumption that we can learn about the real world through our senses and the use of logic. It is an assumption that the evidence we can find today gives information about the past.

if you seriously reject any of these, I seriously question your sanity, though.

Fair enough as long as you agree that you are making an assumption and your theories are not concrete fact.

 

[DavidFirth]

Mostly because they have been raised with those ideas or because they have been lied to by the promoters of such ideas. Most people never get anywhere close to actual evidence.

Sure they do. The New Testament testimonies are evidence from people who were there. Also, the remains of Christ seem to have gotten lost. Considering that they were well guarded by Roman sentries, probably 50 on duty at a time, that is a rather questionable thing as to what happened to the body if He did not resurrect.

 

[sayak83]

Well, you and your fellow scientists are all assuming that everything started at ground zero with the big bang and therefore all of your thinking is derived from that assumption. If there was a Creator I doubt seriously He would have created everything in its pristine state with it taking billions of years for the light from one star to reach the nearest stars. That doesn't make sense.

That's why you can't accept the idea of a Creator who created 10,000 years ago. Your point of view and therefore your thinking is stuck in the assumption of the big bang theory. In order to approach it scientifically and impartially you must get the big bang theory out of your head and stop being so set in your way of thinking.

You refuse to understand the simple fact that scientists consider the Big Bang theory to be true only because it successfully predicted many many features of the universe that were later directly observed by the astronomers. There is No assumption involved here. Predictions were made, predictions were verified, hence the theory is considered true. Simple. In contrast your 10,000 year creation theory
1) Never makes any predictions on what will be found out there in the universe.
2) Never explains why certain features are found in the universe rather than others.
3) Asks people to swallow the ridiculous idea that somehow a universe was "created" just so 10,000 years ago to resemble, in every way, in hundreds and thousand fine details observed by astronomers, a very ancient universe that is expanding and evolving for 13 billion years.

I would like you to explain just what is happening according to the 10,000 year old creation theory of the universe for the case of the 3.8 billion light year away supernova below,

"Brightest Supernova Ever" or Shredded Star? - Sky & Telescope

 

[DavidFirth]

You refuse to understand the simple fact that scientists consider the Big Bang theory to be true only because it successfully predicted many many features of the universe that were later directly observed by the astronomers. There is No assumption involved here. Predictions were made, predictions were verified, hence the theory is considered true. Simple. In contrast your 10,000 year creation theory
1) Never makes any predictions on what will be found out there in the universe.
2) Never explains why certain features are found in the universe rather than others.
3) Asks people to swallow the ridiculous idea that somehow a universe was "created" just so 10,000 years ago to resemble, in every way, in hundreds and thousand fine details observed by astronomers, a very ancient universe that is expanding and evolving for 13 billion years.

I would like you to explain just what is happening according to the 10,000 year old creation theory of the universe for the case of the 3.8 billion light year away supernova below,

"Brightest Supernova Ever" or Shredded Star? - Sky & Telescope

You've already previously answered this question yourself.

If you will insist that big bang theory is not assumptive I will leave the discussion. Just let me know.

 

[sayak83]

You've already previously answered this question yourself.

If you will insist that big bang theory is not assumptive I will leave the discussion. Just let me know.

The assumption is that observed features of the natural world are a reliable guide to truths about the natural world. It's the assumption behind all of science, necessary for living day to day life and necessary if God is good and not a malevolent demonic fraudster who intends to mislead us about the world. Thus not making that assumption is self-defeating.. as it implies that neither observation, nor memory, nor the functioning of our mind is trustworthy and therefore nothing at all can ever be known about anything at all. Hence making that assumption is a precondition to the very possibility of knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

You've already previously answered this question yourself.

If you will insist that big bang theory is not assumptive I will leave the discussion. Just let me know.

The BB is no more 'assumptive' than any other scientific theory. It assumes that the evidence we can collect now can provide information about the past.

In contrast, your proposal says precisely the opposite: that we should seriously consider the concept that all the evidence was fabricated on its way to us, even though it is false. Do you not see the inherent insanity of that? You might as well just declare reality to be an illusion and everything we think we see as being a lie.

 

[DavidFirth]

The assumption is that observed features of the natural world are a reliable guide to truths about the natural world. It's the assumption behind all of science, necessary for living day to day life and necessary if God is good and not a malevolent demonic fraudster who intends to mislead us about the world. Thus not making that assumption is self-defeating.. as it implies that neither observation, nor memory, nor the functioning of our mind is trustworthy and therefore nothing at all can ever be known about anything at all. Hence making that assumption is a precondition to the very possibility of knowledge.

God hardly "intends to mislead us about the world." He has told us what He did in Genesis. If you choose not to believe Him and choose instead to flail about making assumptions, then that's on you.

 

[sayak83]

God hardly "intends to mislead us about the world." He has told us what He did in Genesis. If you choose not to believe Him and choose instead to flail about making assumptions, then that's on you.

God has clearly written the truths of the emergence of this ancient universe from the Big Bang all over the natural world, the only first hand infallible source untampered by illusions or ego of men. If you choose to grope around blindly trusting the words of confused men in an old book, that's upto you.