TySixtus

Dude, if you're going to get pissy over a thread being moved, you won't last long here. It wasn't "shut down". It was moved to a more appropriate forum.

Anyways, "decision" would require conciousness, and time. Are you claiming that the universe is sentient, and outside the "rules" of time?

Ty

alnilam

I don't think the universe "decided" to expand. I don't understand the rest of the question - starting at a point implies not starting at a point ??????

Illusionist

"you won't last long here"
dont worry im not planning on getting comfy here.

King of Men

Well, yes, you have a point. The Big Bang is jsut as unreasonable, or just as reasonable, as the goddidit 'theory'. The point is that it involves one fewer entity to be explained. It has the same amount of explanatory power and one less postulate. Oh, wait - I forgot that it also ahs a lot of evidence in its favour, where there's not a shred of evidence for a creator god.

Undercurrent

More to the OP:

Illusionists, you talk as if "scientists" comprise a group of old men sitting in a room in comfy chairs sipping brandy by the fireplace and coming up with exciting stories about how the universe was created. It is not that way.

Nearly all galaxies admit a red-shift indicating current expansion of the universe as a whole. The proportions of light elements with fragile nucleii in the universe indicate a short, but universe-wide period of very high temperature and pressure. There is a 3K glow isotropically throughout the universe. These things all indicate a large-scale expension of the universe from a small, dense region.

If these observations lead to an uncomfortable conclusion, the observations don't disappear. We simply don't have the liberty of abandoning the big bang theory without an explanation for these facts.

The "God" theory, on the other hand, we can easily abandon without leaving any overhanging "bare facts" to explain.

Illusionist

actually, you just described exactly what i picture when i think of scientists. =)

Illusionist

I believe in the big bang theory as well, its just when it comes down to the beginning of everything, big bang and creation seem to be on equal footing.

Frito

I am not an expert in cosmology, but it seems to me that the reason that the big bang is used is that it fits. Red shift shows an expanding universe and to attempt to unlock the universes secrets we have to have something to plug into the equation. So we plug in the big bang. If we were to plug in god it would throw off the math.

I see the big bang as being more credible than god because it is more useful in the pursuit of knowledge.

Angrillori

I see big bang theory as more credible because of the failures of creation.

Is the universe stuck between water?
Is there a firmament?
In what order did organisms arise?

Science says: No, no, and in nested heirarchies.
Creation says: Yes, yes, and in a specific biblical order (actually orders).
Our observations say: No, no, and in nested heirarchies.

We believe our observations.
Which leaves us with choosing as credible the model that best fits our observations. That's pretty thouroughly the science model.

Remember, creation (as it is usually described) does not limit itself to just godidit, BUT says godidit this way.

If you're willing to throw away the christian dogma, and posit some deistic prime-mover kind of god, well then your case is stronger, but still loses to science by the razor of ockham--both science and this deitic-style creation explain observations, except the deistic-style creation adds an extra piece to the puzzle--a wholly unexplained deity.

MagiNoir

Why God? Why does it always have to be *your* imaginary friend who created everything.
I think my imaginary friend is a better explanation but everybody poo pooh’s it.

Is your God the 2 hippies and a ghost or the one with zero dimensions?