The big bang and the creation of the universe.

[Twilight Hue]

What evidence is there for your hypothesis?

Unless there is evidence, we assume it all began with the big bang.

Energy was the big bang, then at a certain temperature, atoms formed enabling the formation of molecules enabling matter to appear.

 

[Repox]

According to the bible, god spoke to most of them directly. I think zaybu was asking you if that was your claim.

Is it?

I have had personal experiences with God and His angels. My experiences do not replicate those in the Bible and I will not provide details. Also, I have no positive message for the fate of humankind. Therefore, it is senseless to discuss them. Besides, I don't like ridicule. In biblical days, revelations where acceptable. Today, revelations, unless in support of positive New Testament messages, are derided.

If anyone has a "sincere desire" to learn about my experiences, I'll communicate on pm. Otherwise, I don't care to share.

We're making progress if you're admitting it's just your opinion.

I am not interested in your progress. It doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not. For this thread, I prefer to discuss science where I have a better than average understanding. Unless science can prove a natural science cause, God is the default explanation.

 

[Repox]

Energy was the big bang, then at a certain temperature, atoms formed enabling the formation of molecules enabling matter to appear.

Then you think it all began with the big bang? That fits with what scientist believe. It's interesting that, as you say, atoms came from energy from that initial explosion.

 

[McBell]

For this thread, I prefer to discuss science where I have a better than average understanding. Unless science can prove a natural science cause, God is the default explanation.

You really should make up your mind.
And stop with nonsense comments like the one above which shows you are prone to at best exaggeration and worse flat out lying.

 

[idav]

What evidence is there for your hypothesis?

Unless there is evidence, we assume it all began with the big bang.

Why should we assume the big bang was THE beginning when we don't know where the energy from the big bang came from. The evidence suggests that the big bang came from the energy, thats what we know. This energy to this day is in a state of equilibrium with itself so that energy cannot be created or destroyed(law conservation of energy) and this would also be true the moments prior to the energy expanding(big bang).

 

[gnostic]

No, humans are not God's favorite creatures.

Absolutely not. All the evidence tells us he loves beetles most of all.

Really? The Beatles?

I could have swore that god was an Elvis' fan...because Elvis appeared to be omnipresent, just like god.

He is performing in LA at the same time as in New York...and there seemed to be whole host of Elvis in Las Vegas...which is the most amazing miracle. Even Jesus couldn't do that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Then you think it all began with the big bang? That fits with what scientist believe. It's interesting that, as you say, atoms came from energy from that initial explosion.

It came from experimentation involving atoms and temperature
and observing how atoms react. It's extremely fascinating stuff.

 

[Repox]

You really should make up your mind.
And stop with nonsense comments like the one above which shows you are prone to at best exaggeration and worse flat out lying.

I don't believe discussing science and the big bang has anything to do with exaggeration. It seems you are trying to start something. Oh, I don't like being called a liar.

 

[Repox]

Why should we assume the big bang was THE beginning when we don't know where the energy from the big bang came from. The evidence suggests that the big bang came from the energy, thats what we know. This energy to this day is in a state of equilibrium with itself so that energy cannot be created or destroyed(law conservation of energy) and this would also be true the moments prior to the energy expanding(big bang).

That is an unproven hypothesis. It would infer that energy or conditions thereof are eternal. Where did that energy before the big bang come from?
I believe physical laws related to the law of conservation occurred after the big bang.

 

[zaybu]

Where is the evidence for a natural cause explanation?

Which natural cause explanation do you have in mind?

 

[gnostic]

Then you think it all began with the big bang? That fits with what scientist believe. It's interesting that, as you say, atoms came from energy from that initial explosion.

There is (or was) NO EXPLOSION!

Why do silly creationists argue about something, like the Big Bang cosmology, when they don't even bother to learn and understand what the current theory is saying?

Saying the Big Bang is an "explosion" only show that you have zero understanding of the Big Bang concept.

The same thing occurred when they think the Big Bang theory is about making something out of nothing. Scientists (astrophysicists and the BB cosmologists) are saying no such thing; they are not saying anything about NOTHING or NOTHINGNESS.

Creationists are either misunderstanding the BB theory (through ignorance), or they are deliberately misrepresenting (through lies and deceptions).

You and jake033 keep repeating the misinformation and refused to learn from your mistaken understanding of the Big Bang, only make yourselves look like fools, or worse - liars.

If you're not a liar, then actually learn what cosmologists are really trying to explain about the Big Bang, instead of repeating your mistakes again, and again.

 

[zaybu]

You forgot big bang studies. Apparently, it all happened at a fraction of a second, the beginning of everything. Prior to that event there is no evidence of anything, including the law of conservation.

Both QM and GR are inadequate at Planck scale, So saying anything about the beginning of everything is speculative.

 

[zaybu]

Unless science can prove a natural science cause, God is the default explanation.

IOW, if we don't know, God did it. BTW, that fallacy has a name: God-of-the-gaps.

But we do have some scientific theories, one of which is that the universe pop out of the vacuum.

 

[Repox]

IOW, if we don't know, God did it. BTW, that fallacy has a name: God-of-the-gaps.

But we do have some scientific theories, one of which is that the universe pop out of the vacuum.

Yes, virtual particles fluctuation theory. The problem is we have no evidence of it before the big bang. Then, there is the argument based on time, where did that vacuum with VPs come from? At what point in time, or from where did it derive. Assuming physical laws, we must have an explanation for origins.

I know about God of the gaps. This however this is a huge gap. Also, I am not proposing that science is wrong in most explanations, I'm assuming God caused the big bang and science explains what happened thereafter.

It is interesting that science has not seriously regarded laws of probability for cosmological events. As an example, what are the probabilities for matter and anti-matter producing galaxies? what are probabilities for life happening on earth, one of billions of planets?

 

[Repox]

Both QM and GR are inadequate at Planck scale, So saying anything about the beginning of everything is speculative.

Either way, science requires evidence to be valid. We do have evidence from radiation fall out studies for the big bang, so evidence is available, it just requires mining. I don't believe however there is any possibility for a scientific theory explaining how something comes from nothing.

 

[zaybu]

Yes, virtual particles fluctuation theory. The problem is we have no evidence of it before the big bang. Then, there is the argument based on time, where did that vacuum with VPs come from? At what point in time, or from where did it derive. Assuming physical laws, we must have an explanation for origins.

I know about God of the gaps. This however this is a huge gap. Also, I am not proposing that science is wrong in most explanations, I'm assuming God caused the big bang and science explains what happened thereafter.

It is interesting that science has not seriously regarded laws of probability for cosmological events. As an example, what are the probabilities for matter and anti-matter producing galaxies? what are probabilities for life happening on earth, one of billions of planets?

On the question of nothingness, that mainly depends on how you view the vacuum:

(1) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (nothing).

(2) The universe (something) came out of the vacuum (something).

If you take position (2), then to the question, how did something came out of nothing, the right answer is, it never happened.

Now if we take into account that there are other scientific theories floating around: Reinhartd's cyclic theory, Susskind's multiverse, Smolin's fecund universe or Penrose' conformal cyclic cosmology theory. We need more data to filter some of these. But science is not short on this topic.

As to the question of time: according to GR, spacetime is a dynamical feature of the universe. IOW, universe and spacetime can only exist together.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, virtual particles fluctuation theory. The problem is we have no evidence of it before the big bang. Then, there is the argument based on time, where did that vacuum with VPs come from? At what point in time, or from where did it derive. Assuming physical laws, we must have an explanation for origins.

I know about God of the gaps. This however this is a huge gap. Also, I am not proposing that science is wrong in most explanations, I'm assuming God caused the big bang and science explains what happened thereafter.

It is interesting that science has not seriously regarded laws of probability for cosmological events. As an example, what are the probabilities for matter and anti-matter producing galaxies? what are probabilities for life happening on earth, one of billions of planets?

Thats where mass-energy equivalence comes in and Einsteins theory of relativity.

Laws of probability are not very useful. I can throw infinitesimal odds by taking a bag of rice and throwing it into a pan each and every time noting the position of each grain and calculating the odds of duplication. The universe exists using the same principle in that the universe is formed as it's presented and and calculating for a duplication of complex arrangements that like the first throw of the rice grains, it's already established each and every event.

 

[Titanic]

Which theory do like better? God did it or the universe came into being by a "pop"? I say that most likely there both wrong.

 

[idav]

That is an unproven hypothesis. It would infer that energy or conditions thereof are eternal. Where did that energy before the big bang come from?

Scientists dont say where the energy came from. They start with the premise of energy and then insert big bang thoery. The law of conservation didnt suddenly change just cause of expansion. The matter came when the energy had time to cool and settle into matter some 500 million years after expansion.

 

[Repox]

There is (or was) NO EXPLOSION!

Why do silly creationists argue about something, like the Big Bang cosmology, when they don't even bother to learn and understand what the current theory is saying?

Saying the Big Bang is an "explosion" only show that you have zero understanding of the Big Bang concept.

The same thing occurred when they think the Big Bang theory is about making something out of nothing. Scientists (astrophysicists and the BB cosmologists) are saying no such thing; they are not saying anything about NOTHING or NOTHINGNESS.

Creationists are either misunderstanding the BB theory (through ignorance), or they are deliberately misrepresenting (through lies and deceptions).


You and jake033 keep repeating the misinformation and refused to learn from your mistaken understanding of the Big Bang, only make yourselves look like fools, or worse - liars.

If you're not a liar, then actually learn what cosmologists are really trying to explain about the Big Bang, instead of repeating your mistakes again, and again.

You are correct, the world explosion is inaccurate, but it is descriptive. The big bang inflation reached temperatures high enough to permanently imprint cosmic radiation background on the universe.

It is not a lie to say science cannot explain what caused the big bang. They may call it factor X, but in plain English it is NOTHING. What would you call it? Would unknown be better. Well, let's try this. Scientist have no explanation for what happened before the big bang because conditions are UNKNOWN.

Just because you believe in God you're not stupid. Many scientists also believe in God. So, don't be absurd.