The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[ruffen]

I thought you may be interested in Stauss' latest ideas about creation.

How the Higgs Boson Posits a New Story of our Creation - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

I also read his book "A Universe From Nothing" and learned a lot about dark matter, etc. as you did. It is fascinating stuff. Strauss was always inclined to not believe in a creator. However, he is an honest man with a sincere desire for scientific evidence as opposed to speculation. The supposed "God Particle" has sparked a lot of speculation. "It may be accidental consequences of conditions associated with the universe’s birth."

To date, however, the evidence is skimpy with no theoretical consensus.

From the article: "The Higgs particle is now arguably more relevant than God."

I couldn't agree more. We are finally in an era of science where the biggest structures of space, the theory of relativity, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the Big Bang Theory on one side, and the tiniest sizes of quantum physics and particle discoveries on the other, are joined in order to try and get a complete description of our Universe.

The Higgs boson is not only important to understand gravity and why some particles have mass, but also to understanding the conditions in the first picoseconds after the Big Bang. These are exciting times!!


I'll end this post with a nerdy joke:

A Higgs boson walks into a church. The priest says "You're not welcome here! You are too scientific and knowledge about you leaves so little space for stories of God!". The Higgs boson calmly answers: "But without me, you can't have mass!"

:run:

 

[Repox]

Repox.

No one is questioning your belief in creation or in God creating the universe.

It is your continuous misinformation on the Big Bang that we find dishonest.

Like jake033, you're misrepresenting what the theory in Big Bang cosmology is actually saying. Either that, or you are simply don't understand the theory/explanation.

So it really depends on if you are misunderstanding the theory, out of ignorance, OR if you are deliberately misrepresenting the theory, which in this case, you're being dishonest.

If you were ignorant, then it is possible for you to learn more about the Big Bang, and hopefully understand the theory better. Not all creationists have science qualification or background.

Here is a few common mistakes that most creationists make about the BB cosmology. (Please note that below, when I writes "you", I mean "you" in general, eg group of creationists).

1. The Big Bang is not about explosion, which you seemed to assume (ignorance) or deliberate misrepresent (dishonest).
2. You assume (ignorance) or misrepresent the theory when you say thing like the BB is creating SOMETHING out of NOTHING.

Personally I'd prefer that you to be ignorant, instead of a liar, because an ignorant person can learn from his or her mistake. All it required is better education on subject matter.

If you had read my last posting about the Higgs Boson particle you would realize I am not only up to date about latest developments about the big bang controversy, but I am objective enough to post them on this forum. Before making accusations, know what your talking about.

Also, I am not a typical creationist. What is wrong with you people! If I don't agree with you I am a liar. How stupid it that????

Incidentally, I am well informed about the big bang. Obviously, you're the one who is misinformed. If you don't understand, ask me and I'll explain.:help:

 

[McBell]

My argument is God did it and science has no natural science explanation.

Except that you have not presented an argument.
You have done nothing but make claims.
Until you actually support your claims, you have not presented an argument.

Not liking my answer, you claim I am dishonest because I believe in God. How stupid is that!

Your seriously sad attempt at playing the martyr does nothing but further prove the point that you are merely being dishonest.

Skip the stupid game, and make your argument.

There is no argument required to dismiss unsubstantiated ravings.

 

[McBell]

Incidentally, I am well informed about the big bang. Obviously, you're the one who is misinformed. If you don't understand, ask me and I'll explain.:help:

Then please be so kind as to reveal either your ignorance or your dishonesty by explaining the big bang.

 

[Repox]

Then please be so kind as to reveal either your ignorance or your dishonesty by explaining the big bang.

You are also responsible for presenting an argument. Where is it?????????????

You people are really something. You can't stand the idea of God creating the universe. Instead of presenting a natural science explanation for the big bang you attack one who believes God did it. Obviously, to be so certain of your case, you think the big bang is a natural science explanation. It is not! The big bang is a scientific discovery of what caused the universe. It is based on the remnants of huge event, a gigantic inflation that began the universe.

Instead of accusing me of being dishonest admit that you are dishonest for believing there is a natural science explanation for the universe when in fact that is a lie. From your postings I conclude atheist on this forum know little or nothing about science. So, if you don't know, admit it. Don't pretend.

As you'll note from the link the big bang was the beginning of time when the universe was extremely hot and dense. It quickly expanded from inflation to form subatomic particles, etc. Nothing about the big bang explains what caused it, that is what this debate is all about. I claim God caused the big bang. Instead of entertaining that possibility, I am accused of being dishonest. It sounds like poor sportsmanship. If you can't win the game, you get down and dirty.

Here is the link. If you still don't understand, ask me. I am not a scientist but I have an education from my undergraduate years as an engineering major. Given time, I can understand the science. Scientific consensus is also necessary inasmuch as scientists have the final say.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I posted a challenge to atheist because I thought it would be interesting. Instead, it has become acrimonious. Civility would be nice. Just present your argument and skip the personal attacks.

 

[outhouse]

You are also responsible for presenting an argument. Where is it?????????????

You people are really something. You can't stand the idea of God creating the universe.

What do you know of god? anything at all?

Why should we believe in one specific god that many claim was born of mythology a long sides of a mythical flood in many cultures, 800 year old men, and other physical leaps of faith??


It has nothing to do with any of the thousands of gods created in the past.

Scientifically there is not one thing anywhere at anytime that can be attributed to any deity.

is a natural science explanation for the universe when in fact that is a lie.

That is a strong statement you cannot back up.

I claim God caused the big bang.

Why? again, what do you think you know about this concept? Was it El? was it Yahweh? was it Alla? El Elyon? El Shaddia?

 

[ruffen]

As you'll note from the link the big bang was the beginning of time when the universe was extremely hot and dense. It quickly expanded from inflation to form subatomic particles, etc. Nothing about the big bang explains what caused it, that is what this debate is all about. I claim God caused the big bang.

There is a problem here.

Science indicates that time itself started at the Big Bang. And as you say the universe was extremely dense as the entire universe was packed into an extremely small area. This means that the universe's escape velocity was beyond light speed, as in the singularities found in black holes in the Universe today. The only thing allowing it to still expand was the expansion of space itself and not particles moving faster than speed of light. Inside such extreme gravity wells, time stops completely according to Einsteins theory of relativity (and that theory has been confirmed many times!), so if the Universe was like this, that would support the notion that time as we know it did indeed start at the Big Bang.

Now here's the problem - if you're going to use the principle of causality to explain that the origin of the Universe must have had a cause (God or any other), that same principle says that the cause must happen before the effect in time. You can never say that the effect happend first and the cause for the effect came after. But in the case of the Big Bang, there is no before. If time itself didn't exist before the Universe existed, how could any cause, divine or natural, have caused the Big Bang before it?

Claiming that something happened before the Big Bang might be as meaningless as speaking of what's north of the North pole here on Earth. It's not that there is nothing there and empty wastelands at more than 90° northern latitude, the whole concept is meaningless.

 

[Repox]

What do you know of god? anything at all?

Why should we believe in one specific god that many claim was born of mythology a long sides of a mythical flood in many cultures, 800 year old men, and other physical leaps of faith??

I am not in the business of converting people to my beliefs. If you don't believe me, so be it. Knowing what I know about societies, unless you're born into a faith, there is little one can do to proselytize. My belief is the Old Testament Lord is God.

It has nothing to do with any of the thousands of gods created in the past.

It is difficult to image so many gods out there. For one, how did they all agree to on set of physical laws. There are countless problems with so many gods.

Scientifically there is not one thing anywhere at anytime that can be attributed to any deity.

I disagree. The whole universe can be attributed to one God. Unless science can provide a natural science explanation for the big bang, God, the invisible force did it.

That is a strong statement you cannot back up.

Neither can atheist prove a natural science explanation for the big bang. It appears to be a draw. There is no empirical proof of God and science has no evidence for for a natural science explanation.

Why? again, what do you think you know about this concept? Was it El? was it Yahweh? was it Alla? El Elyon? El Shaddia?

I already state which God I believe in. It is Yahweh, the Jewish God.

 

[Repox]

There is a problem here.

Science indicates that time itself started at the Big Bang. And as you say the universe was extremely dense as the entire universe was packed into an extremely small area. This means that the universe's escape velocity was beyond light speed, as in the singularities found in black holes in the Universe today. The only thing allowing it to still expand was the expansion of space itself and not particles moving faster than speed of light. Inside such extreme gravity wells, time stops completely according to Einsteins theory of relativity (and that theory has been confirmed many times!), so if the Universe was like this, that would support the notion that time as we know it did indeed start at the Big Bang.

Now here's the problem - if you're going to use the principle of causality to explain that the origin of the Universe must have had a cause (God or any other), that same principle says that the cause must happen before the effect in time. You can never say that the effect happend first and the cause for the effect came after. But in the case of the Big Bang, there is no before. If time itself didn't exist before the Universe existed, how could any cause, divine or natural, have caused the Big Bang before it?

Claiming that something happened before the Big Bang might be as meaningless as speaking of what's north of the North pole here on Earth. It's not that there is nothing there and empty wastelands at more than 90° northern latitude, the whole concept is meaningless.

If nothing is meaningless, why did Lawrence Strauss call his book, A Universe From Nothing? Even though cosmologists admit to having problems with the concept, they acknowledge its importance for the development of the universe. In particular, scientist have determined the universe to have an age (about 13.7 billion years old). Time is important because it addresses the issue of cause.

I am familiar with Einsteins theory about time and the speed of light. However, that only is relevant after the big bang, not before.

Yes, I agree if there was no time before the big bang then we have "nothing" ha. ha. to go on. However, assuming God is eternal, which is the absence of time, there is an explanation. God, an eternal spiritual being, created a material universe based on time. In heaven God has no clock or time schedule. However, I believe God's angels are related to a sort of time whereas they have birth orders from the first to the last angel.

 

[sonofdad]

Neither can atheist prove a natural science explanation for the big bang. It appears to be a draw. There is no empirical proof of God and science has no evidence for for a natural science explanation.

What's wrong with "I don't know" ?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The thing about the Universe, the big bang and all these questions comes down to what people believe and what they base their beliefs off of.

For example many people try to claim its god because science doesn't have the answer. Atheists say they don't know but don't believe it was god because there is no evidence supporting that.


For an example. If there is a box and its impossible to open and we can't see inside. One guy says he doesn't know whats in the box. Then someone claims its a 6 legged super mongoose inside. Is the one that claims to not know required to believe the one who claims its a 6 legged super mongoose simply because he doesn't have a better alternative?

It really is the same thing for the big bang. Atheists "don't know" and theist have an unprovable claim.

 

[gnostic]

The thing about the Universe, the big bang and all these questions comes down to what people believe and what they base their beliefs off of.

For example many people try to claim its god because science doesn't have the answer. Atheists say they don't know but don't believe it was god because there is no evidence supporting that.


For an example. If there is a box and its impossible to open and we can't see inside. One guy says he doesn't know whats in the box. Then someone claims its a 6 legged super mongoose inside. Is the one that claims to not know required to believe the one who claims its a 6 legged super mongoose simply because he doesn't have a better alternative?

It really is the same thing for the big bang. Atheists "don't know" and theist have an unprovable claim.

I hoped that you are not making atheists and scientists synonymous, because there are lot of scientists involved in the Big Bang - some theists, some atheists, and there are whole bunch of them in between these two.

It is only bunch of crazy literal (Christian) creationists that think they are right, despite the scientific evidences saying otherwise. Nothing in Genesis (or even John 1) even suggest or hint at the Big Bang, and yet these few are willing the words they hold sacred, so to suggest that God was involved in the Big Bang.

 

[Repox]

What's wrong with "I don't know" ?

That is an excellent answer if one has no conviction. However, if one knows, it's inadequate. However, if there is no evidence or persuasive argument, it is futile.

 

[PastorClark]

I know God did it. However, the name of the game here is to win the argument for God. Atheist must rely on science for a contrary argument. So, I challenge atheist to prove God doesn't exist, or that science has the answer.

Can religion explain:

How we can have cars, planes, computers, cell phones, smartphones, gaming consoles, TVs, cameras, talking computers, talking robots etc etc.

Try to explain that with religion.

just by saying God did it, doesn't explain how or why.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I hoped that you are not making atheists and scientists synonymous, because there are lot of scientists involved in the Big Bang - some theists, some atheists, and there are whole bunch of them in between these two.

It is only bunch of crazy literal (Christian) creationists that think they are right, despite the scientific evidences saying otherwise. Nothing in Genesis (or even John 1) even suggest or hint at the Big Bang, and yet these few are willing the words they hold sacred, so to suggest that God was involved in the Big Bang.

No I am not. Generally atheists trust science first in my experience. And I am not knocking any religion specifically but I was taking a jab at those that specifically make the argument that "science doesn't know therefore god" or "Scientists are so stupid. Its obviously god".

 

[Repox]

I hoped that you are not making atheists and scientists synonymous, because there are lot of scientists involved in the Big Bang - some theists, some atheists, and there are whole bunch of them in between these two.

It is only bunch of crazy literal (Christian) creationists that think they are right, despite the scientific evidences saying otherwise. Nothing in Genesis (or even John 1) even suggest or hint at the Big Bang, and yet these few are willing the words they hold sacred, so to suggest that God was involved in the Big Bang.

Again, I must state I am not a typical creationist. I believe science is correct about their discoveries, particular the big bang. I believe in God and I challenge scientist to produce a natural science argument for the big bang. In brief, I believe God intervened in the affairs of humankind (Bible). I also believe that God's chosen people, lacking scientific knowledge, described events without accurately reflecting what happened after the big bang.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is an excellent answer if one has no conviction. However, if one knows, it's inadequate. However, if there is no evidence or persuasive argument, it is futile.

Its not only an excellent answer its the only answer outside of faith which isn't based in this world. One does not require "conviction" in things that we in all honesty DO NOT know.

 

[Repox]

Its not only an excellent answer its the only answer outside of faith which isn't based in this world. One does not require "conviction" in things that we in all honesty DO NOT know.

To have conviction you must know or else you are not sincere.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To have conviction you must know or else you are not sincere.

There are things uknowable. You can be sincere without knowing. Saying "we don't know" is a perfectly legitimate answer. If a teacher asks you a question that you don't know do you make something up or do you tell them the truth?

 

[sonofdad]

That is an excellent answer if one has no conviction. However, if one knows, it's inadequate. However, if there is no evidence or persuasive argument, it is futile.

But why would you have a conviction?
When you say science doesn't have the answer, therefor my answer is right, or my answer is as likely as any other answer, then you imply that you have some better method of finding out the facts of the natural universe, so why draw the line only by the things science doesn't know (yet?)?

When you put your faith in the gaps, then very likely you're either setting yourself up to be wrong, which is fine if you accept that, but worse is that you're setting yourself up so that you may be mentally inclined to reject whatever empirically supported explanation may come up the in the future.

Seems to me it's not much different from the creationist point of view, which today I think is very much the remnants of the same kind of mentality from the past. There was always this gigantic gap of "where did life come from?" so people could freely put whatever creator or idea they wanted in there without any of those pesky facts getting in the way. Probably even for a while after evolution was revealed, while it was still relatively unsupported in contrast to what it is today.

Then evolution keeps gaining more scientific support and huge amounts of evidence are discovered, but at the same time the people who were convinced their god could exist in that gap are raising their children and teaching other people to believe in those same ideas. "science doesn't know where we came from, (therefor God did it)", which gradually turns into "well, science doesn't how that evolved, so evolution is probably wrong (therefor God did it)" and you end up with generations of people who are raised with this mental barrier, this conviction that prevents them from accepting any contradicting facts when presented to them.

I'm going down a slippery slope here, but point is, when I can't know, I don't know. I'd like to know, but I accept that there isn't any great evidence at the moment so I accept that whatever answer I'd pick right know would be an educated guess at best.