Jesse

xianseeker:
Second, the big bang did not come out of nothing. Go read a few books by Hawking or popularzations of quantum physics.

These sorts of ideas are totally speculative though, so if anyone treats them as gospel Magus55's comments about "faith" would actually be an appropriate criticism. Only if you understand the Big Bang theory as referring to what the universe was doing after the first 10^-43 seconds can you say that there is a lot of evidence to support the theory.

ex-xian

Oh, I agree they're speculative, esp the part about cause and effect. But I don't think that saying the perhaps the universe spontaneously occured in a quantum vacuum is the same as blind faith in God.

If you say that before planck time, you are saying the same thing. We currently have no theory that can account for t=0 thru planck time, we can only make educated guesses.

The bit about cause and effect is, IMO, an effective response to theists who argue that "every event has a cause." Which is impossible to prove in and of itself. Basically this is saying,
Ax Ey Ryx = for every x, there exists a y such that they are related by y causing x. This is what's known as the "haunted universe" theory because it implies anything.

I'm not a Humean, I don't disbelieve in cause and effect or induction, however, it is impossible to state with certainty that every event has a cause.

Paul2

Why?

But, we do have hard evidence. Using your same logic, you can't claim god created the universe because we cannot go back to the point in which he did.

Look into quantum mechanics.

Just because you don't understand soemthing, doesn't mean that it is wrong. I'd suggest studying things a bit more before you dismiss them. You obviously care, at least a little bit, otherwise you wouldn't be here asking us these questions.


Btw, to answer your query of where matter came from. What i recall is that there was an "object" called a singularity that had infinite(?) mass and yet occupied no space. Then "something" happend and then it started to expand. IE, the big bang. Someone correct me if i'm in error.

Paul

schu

"Cosmic Revelations"

This article shows a WMAP satellite picture of the hot and cold spots in the cosmic microwave background.

John N. Baheall of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. says, "For cosmology, this announcement represents a rite of passage from philosophical uncertainty to precision science."

Is he overstating the case?

Godless Dave

First of all the Big Bang theory does not address "how the universe was created", it describes everything that has happened since the begining of the universe. I'm afraid you may have been fed some false information about what the Big Bang theory says.

Even if I were to concede that the evidence for the Big Bang and subsequent expansion of the universe was not conclusive, it is still more evidence than there is for the existence of God. There is ZERO evidence for the existence of God. So we do not require nearly enough faith to accept the Big Bang as you do to believe in God.

The other difference is, if further discoveries and theoretical work were to find a different explanation for the development of the universe it would not shake our entire world view. Many scientists would have an emotional resistance at first, and some might never accept the new evidence (just as Fred Hoyle clung to his "steady state" non-expanding model of the universe long after it had been demonstrated to be wrong), but the scientific consensus would eventually line up with the best theory. But at no time would our views on morality, culture, or the meaning of life change because of the scientific explanation of existence. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not a philosophical treatise or a spiritual exercise.

Magus55

For Christians, our evidence is the Bible - God told us how he created the Universe and since we believe its his truth, we accept what he says.

Just because you don't understand God and the Bible doesn't mean its wrong... works both ways.

We have plenty of evidence to lead us to believe the accounts of the Bible are real, you just don't take them as fact - just like Christians don't take theories by physicists as fact. The missing pieces that we can't conclude from the Bible is where our faith comes in.

And to your point about singularity Paul2. If that point contained infinite mass yet no space, how long has it been there? What made it explode when it did? Did the singularity just appear there randomly? If not when did atoms decide to explode and form the universe? Dang those atoms are impressive - they don't contain life or intelligence, but they can pick and choose when they create things - im impressed. And if the universe formed by pure chance and chaotically, why does the universe and the Earth contain so much organization suggesting an intelligent, organized beginning?

And we could technically bring the Big Bang and God together. God created the singularity and made it explode, thus forming the heavens and the Earth. Would be very simple for him. God says "singularity explode and cover the heavens" whala, Big Bang plus God.

ex-xian

Well, which creation story are you talking about, the one in Gen 1 or the one in Gen 2? You do know that the two stories contradict each other don't you?

If, for the sake of argument, it was granted that you understand the bible better than me, you are the one arguing with scientific terminology that you don't understand.

As for understanding God, you need to look into your spiritual heritage, both jewish and christian.

Concerning the rest of your post, look in quantum physics. Do a search for quantum vacuum on the internet.

MyKell

Magus
ARE YOU READING WHAT WE ALL ARE POSTING?
We are continuously answering your questions. All that nonsense about the conservation of mass and the first law of thermodynamics has been answered in my earlier post. The laws of physics themselves stem from the very simple principle of symmetry. People have been answering your questions about the birth of time and why your questions don't make any sense from a physicist's point of view.
I'm not a physicist myself, and I'm sure those who are can do a much better job at explaining thorny issues like that to the lay person. Actually, most of the people who posted have been doing a great job, and have taught me alot.
Anyway, Magus, I don' think anyone is interested in hearing what you have to say... You say that we can't understand the bible just like you don't understand physics. Wrong answer. We probably understand the whole thing much better than you do. But we all refuse to accept the mythology of religion as truth. No faith in understanding physics, we don't just believe that there was a big bang, we seek evidence.
Now your lousy efforts in trying to combine God and the Big bang are just so lame. If you want to LEARN anything, try to read the posts that have been posted, not just argue for the sake of argument.
Otherwise, I just think you should pray to God/Jehova/Allah to build you a time machine. Go back to the eighteenth century where you might better fit

Queen of Swords

Magus55,

You may have overlooked my question. You said, At least with God since he isn't physical he didn't need to have a beginning

I repeat, is there some law that says "non-physical things don't need to have a beginning"? And could you provide evidence for this assertion?

Paul2

So you accept something that has no evidence, but deny something that does? blah.


As a formor catholic, raised going to church 4 times a week, catholic schooling, sunday school and the works, i think i know where you're coming from. As someone that has studied the bible as both a "believer" and a "non believer" i think i can say i know a thing or two about the god and the bible.

Plenty of evidence? Oh, like the great flood? There is little to no evidence of the bible being a 100% accurate historical book. You see, i don't take the accounts of the bible as fact, because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE FACTS. Whereas the theories that come from scientific investigation are usually a decent way to describe what is really going on in our world. The evidence suggests that there was a big bang. The evidence does not suggest that there was a mystical being that made everything.

Time started at the big bang.

Quantom mechanics.

The evidence does not suggest an intelligent "designer." The evidence suggests the exact opposite. If it was designed, the designer was of limited intelligence. Oh and in chaos, you'll find order. See fractals.

And then we use ockham's razor to remove god.