The Big Bang Theory

[whatsgoinon53]

No, I'm not referring to the hilarious TV show. I'm referring to what scientists say, 'started the world.'

Personally I don't believe the Theory of the Big Bang. I don't see the possibility of a supernova explosion being able to create planets and a solar system. I don't see how those planets could automatically orbit around the sun and I don't see the possibility in that supernova creating a planet at the perfect distance from a star that we know as the sun so that it can sustain life.

Yes there aren't many other theories but there are religions that say different.

I would like to find out what you theory is and/or what your religion is. I'm very open for discussion especially on such an intriguing topic.

[Walter Powers]

It just seems like scientists looked at th euniverse from a telescope, saw that it'd was drifting apart, and assumed it must've been doing that since the beginning of time, so logically at the beginning of time they would think all the matter there was was in a compact little ball. To this I say: First, why do we assume that the unverse has always been drifting apart. Second, if that's the beginning of the universe, how'd that ball of matter get there?

Some higher force or being must've created the universe. There's no other explanation.

[britishboy]

It just seems like scientists looked at th euniverse from a telescope, saw that it'd was drifting apart, and assumed it must've been doing that since the beginning of time, so logically at the beginning of time they would think all the matter there was was in a compact little ball. To this I say: First, why do we assume that the unverse has always been drifting apart. Second, if that's the beginning of the universe, how'd that ball of matter get there?

Some higher force or being must've created the universe. There's no other explanation.

firstly it is just a theory as we dont yet have a time traveling device:P and im assuming you mean god created the universe, who created the god?

[saea97]

I don't see the possibility of a supernova explosion being able to create planets and a solar system. I don't see how those planets could automatically orbit around the sun and I don't see the possibility in that supernova creating a planet at the perfect distance from a star that we know as the sun so that it can sustain life.

"Supernova" is the wrong terminology. That word refers usually to the collapse of the core of a massive star. What the Big Bang Theory refers to is the origination of all the matter in the Universe from a single point.

As for it creating "planets and a solar system" (what a vast understatement) the matter formed from clouds drawn together by gravity until they became denser and denser. All the complex elements we find on Earth today came into existence during the deaths of other stars. It's poetic, really.

"Automatically" also doesn't make much sense. Given that it's been 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang, the transition to where we are now has been anything but automatic.

As for the unlikeliness of the Earth being the perfect distance from the Sun, I agree that it's unlikely, but the Universe is unthinkably vast - there are billions upon billions of stars, many with several planets orbiting them. Given these huge numbers, the chance of conditions arising that support the development of life is pretty much a mathematical certainty. See the Drake Equation for further details.

Yes there aren't many other theories but there are religions that say different.

So? You're displeased with the Big Bang Theory presumably because you take issue with the evidence unless you have an a priori inclination to believe the religious stories (although the evidence is pretty strong, actually). Well, religions have no evidence at all to back up their creation myths, and postulating a creator offers no explanatory power as it raises further questions. There's no reason to believe that there is a creator, as the origin of the Universe has been explained by science. Occam's Razor.

Walter:

if that's the beginning of the universe, how'd that ball of matter get there?

A very intriguing theory developed by Prof. Lawrence Krauss (which imo makes him a cert for the Nobel Prize) is that "nothing" is in fact a quantum vacuum, which is unstable, and, just as matter and antimatter can annihilate to form "nothing", nothing can also form matter and anti-matter. Krauss argues for this far better and more elegantly than I ever could (along with demonstrating good evidence) in his book "A Universe From Nothing". So it's simplistic to say "a ball of matter", as that's not what contemporary physicists theorize.

Hence, something CAN come from nothing, and therefore the standard refrain of theists with regard to the Big Bang (ex nihilo, nihil fit) is wrong.

Some higher force or being must've created the universe. There's no other explanation.

This belief cannot go untested. It is a scientific hypothesis like any other, and so must provide evidence and undergo scrutiny to determine if it's true. Regrettably, there is no evidence.

[Nellerin]

No, I'm not referring to the hilarious TV show. I'm referring to what scientists say, 'started the world.'

Personally I don't believe the Theory of the Big Bang. I don't see the possibility of a supernova explosion being able to create planets and a solar system. I don't see how those planets could automatically orbit around the sun and I don't see the possibility in that supernova creating a planet at the perfect distance from a star that we know as the sun so that it can sustain life.

That is not really how it happened, and nothing was automatic. There are tons of specific formulas and calculations that account for how things orbit.

Yes there aren't many other theories but there are religions that say different.

Sure, but these religions are very new for the most part and shouldn't be automatically given more credibility than any single person screaming and shouting something.


It just seems like scientists looked at th euniverse from a telescope, saw that it'd was drifting apart, and assumed it must've been doing that since the beginning of time, so logically at the beginning of time they would think all the matter there was was in a compact little ball. To this I say: First, why do we assume that the unverse has always been drifting apart. Second, if that's the beginning of the universe, how'd that ball of matter get there?

Some higher force or being must've created the universe. There's no other explanation.

Well, they looked and found the CBR and then created three formulas to figure out how the Universe has to of been created. They determined that the Big Bang was the only plausible one.

Everything was very hot and after millions of years, different types of atoms, planets, systems condensed.

firstly it is just a theory as we dont yet have a time traveling device:P and im assuming you mean god created the universe, who created the god?

We do not really need a time travel device, we can look back with a telescope and see just about when/where the Big Bang was occurring.

And it makes no sense to super-impose a complex being at the start of the process because that creates more questions than answers and goes against the Evolutionary Fact.

[Walter Powers]

firstly it is just a theory as we dont yet have a time traveling device:P and im assuming you mean god created the universe, who created the god?

It is just a theory.

I don't think we can know what created the universe. I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, however. It just gets me when people saw "the Big Bang created the universe." No, it didn't. IF the theory is correct, it doesn't explain where the intial bit of matter came from.

[britishboy]

It is just a theory.

I don't think we can know what created the universe. I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, however. It just gets me when people saw "the Big Bang created the universe." No, it didn't. IF the theory is correct, it doesn't explain where the intial bit of matter came from.

that's the dilemma, no matter what people believe, nothing explains where god or the original piece of matter came from

[Nellerin]

that's the dilemma, no matter what people believe, nothing explains where god or the original piece of matter came from

Well, humans will never know the answer. But a more advanced species easily could know the answer already.

Humans are survival-based so there is no evolutionary benefit to us knowing where the Universe or World came from, so our Brain will always block us from knowing.

[saea97]

It is just a theory.

And presumably you know the scientific definition of a theory? Evolution and gravity are also "just theories".

I don't think we can know what created the universe. I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, however. It just gets me when people saw "the Big Bang created the universe." No, it didn't. IF the theory is correct, it doesn't explain where the intial bit of matter came from.

I've already addressed this a few posts above. Did you miss it or are you ignoring it?

[Bougainvillea]

It is just a theory.

I don't think we can know what created the universe.

I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, however.

You are so contradictive, it hurts.

You're willing to toss out (something you do often) a widely accepted theory like you're some seasoned cosmologist, without a problem. Even though this theory has been studied by a large portion of the scientific community, but then you claim that "you know" it was a higher power.

No, you're not the "logical" teen I was warned about. You are anything but logical.

[Walter Powers]

And presumably you know the scientific definition of a theory? Evolution and gravity are also "just theories".



I've already addressed this a few posts above. Did you miss it or are you ignoring it?

You never quoted me. I didn't know you had wanted me to respond to you. I'll get to it.

[Harry Smith]

I don't think we can know what created the universe. I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, .

Just in case you missed it

[Walter Powers]

Just in case you missed it

?

You think the universe just happened? Nothing triggered it?

[Harry Smith]

?

You think the universe just happened? Nothing triggered it?

I don't know what happened, neither do you. I don't have the scientific knowledge to promote a thesis on the big bang.

I was also referring to your post in which you said

I don't think we can know what created the universe.

I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, however.

[Walter Powers]

I don't know what happened, neither do you. I don't have the scientific knowledge to promote a thesis on the big bang.

I was also referring to your post in which you said

What about it?

[Bougainvillea]

What about it?

It's stupid.

[Stronk Serb]

It just seems like scientists looked at th euniverse from a telescope, saw that it'd was drifting apart, and assumed it must've been doing that since the beginning of time, so logically at the beginning of time they would think all the matter there was was in a compact little ball. To this I say: First, why do we assume that the unverse has always been drifting apart. Second, if that's the beginning of the universe, how'd that ball of matter get there?

Some higher force or being must've created the universe. There's no other explanation.

Science has not proven the existence of a divine entity for thousands of years, so it does not exist. Many theories from the Bible have been disproven, like evolution. If we were created by Adam and Eve, we would all be inbred grotesques which would make a man today vomit.

[Walter Powers]

Science has not proven the existence of a divine entity for thousands of years, so it does not exist. Many theories from the Bible have been disproven, like evolution. If we were created by Adam and Eve, we would all be inbred grotesques which would make a man today vomit.

500 years ago we had not proven gravity. Does that mean it didn't exist?

I'm not saying that the Bible is true, I'm just saying some form of higher power must've created this miracle.


It's stupid.

It seems logical to me. You have a better explanation?

[saea97]

500 years ago we had not proven gravity. Does that mean it didn't exist?

I'm not saying that the Bible is true, I'm just saying some form of higher power must've created this miracle.




It seems logical to me. You have a better explanation?

Once again, early on in this thread I posted details of the prevailing theory (including citing a source packed with evidence: Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing") that explains the origin of the Universe (including the cause of the Big Bang) in a way that in no way requires a God to exist. Perhaps it was my error in not adding the right quote tags (this has now been rectified), but earlier you assured me you would respond to it, and yet are persisting in spouting the fallacious argument from ignorance: "Some form of higher power must've created this miracle."

[FrostWraith]

Once again, early on in this thread I posted details of the prevailing theory (including citing a source packed with evidence: Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing") that explains the origin of the Universe (including the cause of the Big Bang) in a way that in no way requires a God to exist. Perhaps it was my error in not adding the right quote tags (this has now been rectified), but earlier you assured me you would respond to it, and yet are persisting in spouting the fallacious argument from ignorance: "Some form of higher power must've created this miracle."

I have not read A Universe From Nothing and have no particular interest in doing so; however, the quantum-vacuum-to-matter-and-antimatter theory still begs the question of what happened before the quantum vacuum was created. If it's unstable, it couldn't have existed forever, so what was before that? Current science states that everything must have a cause in something else, so it seems like in order for the universe to be created, it would require something that can exist without an external cause (in other words, God). That, or some sort of infinite time loop in which the universe was caused by a previous universe's destruction.

[saea97]

I have not read A Universe From Nothing and have no particular interest in doing so; however, the quantum-vacuum-to-matter-and-antimatter theory still begs the question of what happened before the quantum vacuum was created. If it's unstable, it couldn't have existed forever, so what was before that? Current science states that everything must have a cause in something else, so it seems like in order for the universe to be created, it would require something that can exist without an external cause (in other words, God). That, or some sort of infinite time loop in which the universe was caused by a previous universe's destruction.

Krauss hypothesises that instability (in the sense of behaving as a quantum vacuum) is simply the nature of "nothing"; ergo, nothing happened to cause the quantum vacuum, because the quantum vacuum is itself "nothing". It's important to differentiate here between the musty theological definition of nothing as total emptiness, and the modern definition of "nothing" as physics has discovered.

Confusing wordplay about "nothing" aside, one has to laugh at the almost unbelievable contradiction that religious people offer up in the cosmological argument: Everything must have a cause -> God is uncaused. (?!)

[Jess]

The Big Bang makes more sense than us being created from DIRT (or in the case of women, made from a man's rib).

I don't believe any higher power triggered anything.

[FrostWraith]

Krauss hypothesises that instability (in the sense of behaving as a quantum vacuum) is simply the nature of "nothing"; ergo, nothing happened to cause the quantum vacuum, because the quantum vacuum is itself "nothing". It's important to differentiate here between the musty theological definition of nothing as total emptiness, and the modern definition of "nothing" as physics has discovered.

Confusing wordplay about "nothing" aside, one has to laugh at the almost unbelievable tautology that religious people offer up in the cosmological argument: Everything must have a cause -> God is uncaused. (?!)

But what was the quantum vacuum before it was a quantum vacuum? And if it was a quantum vacuum forever, what caused it to decide to suddenly change?

The theological argument as I understand it is that the idea that everything has a cause can't explain the start of existence, because that would be uncaused. Therefore, there must be something without a cause that started the entire thing.

[saea97]

But what was the quantum vacuum before it was a quantum vacuum?

It's reasonable to suggest it had always been nothing. (Because why does "nothing" need a cause?) One can only speculate what happened before the event that caused nothing to become something; the point is that the whole nothing -> something transition is explainable without a God. Bear in mind that to claim God caused a quantum vacuum to exist is literally to state "God created nothing." - possibly the worst way imaginable for an omnipotent God to create a Universe, wouldn't you say?

And if it was a quantum vacuum forever, what caused it to decide to suddenly change?

Well, if you concede that it's unstable then this answers itself. Just as unstable elements decay, the unstable quantum vacuum eventually happened upon the circumstances that caused the Big Bang.

As an aside, I'm not suggesting that you're using it as anything other than a facetious figure of speech, but obviously "decide" is not really an appropriate word to use here - this implies conscious thought, which is a claim that must be substantiated.

The theological argument as I understand it is that the idea that everything has a cause can't explain the start of existence, because that would be uncaused. Therefore, there must be something without a cause that started the entire thing.

Perhaps, yes, but the view that this cause could only have been God is antiquated given the theory of a zero-energy flat Universe which arose due to the unstable nature of nothing. So if one assumes (logically) that "nothing" does not need a cause and concedes, given the evidence, that "nothing" is unstable, the cosmological argument can be fulfilled without the omnipotent, timeless, spaceless, causeless (etc ad nauseam) "God".

[Cygnus]

It is just a theory.

Gravity is also a theory, yet you will still die when throwing yourself off a 20 floor building.

[Capto]

Quantum mechanics is hella confusing, and makes me cry.

Personally I don't believe the Theory of the Big Bang. I don't see the possibility of a supernova explosion being able to create planets and a solar system. I don't see how those planets could automatically orbit around the sun and I don't see the possibility in that supernova creating a planet at the perfect distance from a star that we know as the sun so that it can sustain life.

As stated prior, there's nothing automatic about it. Also, the formation of stars, and subsequently planets and solar systems is already easily explainable. Also as stated before, not a supernova. All of the above in the quote are so distant that they are in essence irrelevant to the Big Bang.

The following is my simplified and flawed view of the Big Bang. Feel free to criticize and correct.

If we simplify it to layman's terms, and compare the voluminous extent of the modern universe to a Euclidean space, backtracking temporally using Hubble's work, the very 'start' of the universe, or at t=0 [where t is the amount of time after the 'creation of the universe'], we can liken the entirety of the 'universe' at the time, as well as all the matter and energy existent to a single Cartesian point on a Euclidean space. This, in essence, states the 'universe at time t=0' to be a space of essentially zero volume and essentially infinite density [using basic limits]. This is what's called the singularity. Now, from here, it is quite clear that classical physics are no longer relevant. Instead, quantum mechanics dominate. Oh, and before I forget, the idea of 'a ball of matter' needs to stahp. It's not so much a measurable volume as a singular point. Which is hella confusing. This is interesting, now that I think about it. It's kind of like quantum mechanics itself, as it's constantly fluctuating. You can try to measure the volume and density of the t=0 universe, but when you do, the volume gets smaller, and by default the density gets larger. It never stops. Which is why we use limits. The volume is estimated to be zero because even once we can measure it to be 10^-(10^1000000000), it will still be measured at zero. So we arbitrate it as such. And we use the exact same limit for the density by default. So all the energy and all the matter is contained within the singularity at t=0. And that's that. Now how it got like that is unknown, and unlikely to be figured out at all. And similarly, we can't tell how or why classical physics became relevant, though we can postulate that its presence would have been the trigger to the Big Bang by switching the focus from the subatomic point scale to our standard voluminous scale. And from there, well, it exploded.

I hope that this was simple enough to understand, and I hope that I got it right.

[Stronk Serb]

500 years ago we had not proven gravity. Does that mean it didn't exist?

I'm not saying that the Bible is true, I'm just saying some form of higher power must've created this miracle.




It seems logical to me. You have a better explanation?

Newton's laws do not apply in astrophysics or whatever kind of physics which happen in outer universe. The Big Bang probably has happened totally by accident. There was not a divine intervention or higher power as you say. It did not need a higher intervention. But if a higher power created the universe, what created that higher power?

[Calvin_]

I believe that god may have created an explosion of light and matter there fore created and is still creating an ever more vast and confusing universe. So yes the Big Bang theory did happen.

[Origami]

I don't necessarily believe in The Big Bang Theory (Or any scientific theory regarding the beginning of the universe) or Creationism.

I personally find it way too convenient that things just so happened to miraculously fall into place and work out all perfect and good. And I find the idea that something can come from nothing to be outlandish as well. Again, these are both in my personal beliefs.

I suppose my own beliefs would revolve around a mix of Creationism and The Big Bang Theory, not relying solely on one or the other.

[RyanCrest]

I guess the big bang could be the the way God created the universe...but in the end it's all about what you believe

[whatsgoinon53]

"Supernova" is the wrong terminology. That word refers usually to the collapse of the core of a massive star. What the Big Bang Theory refers to is the origination of all the matter in the Universe from a single point.

As for it creating "planets and a solar system" (what a vast understatement) the matter formed from clouds drawn together by gravity until they became denser and denser. All the complex elements we find on Earth today came into existence during the deaths of other stars. It's poetic, really.

"Automatically" also doesn't make much sense. Given that it's been 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang, the transition to where we are now has been anything but automatic.

As for the unlikeliness of the Earth being the perfect distance from the Sun, I agree that it's unlikely, but the Universe is unthinkably vast - there are billions upon billions of stars, many with several planets orbiting them. Given these huge numbers, the chance of conditions arising that support the development of life is pretty much a mathematical certainty. See the Drake Equation for further details.



So? You're displeased with the Big Bang Theory presumably because you take issue with the evidence unless you have an a priori inclination to believe the religious stories (although the evidence is pretty strong, actually). Well, religions have no evidence at all to back up their creation myths, and postulating a creator offers no explanatory power as it raises further questions. There's no reason to believe that there is a creator, as the origin of the Universe has been explained by science. Occam's Razor.

Walter:



A very intriguing theory developed by Prof. Lawrence Krauss (which imo makes him a cert for the Nobel Prize) is that "nothing" is in fact a quantum vacuum, which is unstable, and, just as matter and antimatter can annihilate to form "nothing", nothing can also form matter and anti-matter. Krauss argues for this far better and more elegantly than I ever could (along with demonstrating good evidence) in his book "A Universe From Nothing". So it's simplistic to say "a ball of matter", as that's not what contemporary physicists theorize.

Hence, something CAN come from nothing, and therefore the standard refrain of theists with regard to the Big Bang (ex nihilo, nihil fit) is wrong.


This belief cannot go untested. It is a scientific hypothesis like any other, and so must provide evidence and undergo scrutiny to determine if it's true. Regrettably, there is no evidence.

Okay, so automatically wasn't the right word. I also have no interest in reading A Universe from nothing. I have to agree with Walter on this one mainly because of my belief but also because of the logic behind his answer. There must have been a higher power that had the ability to create life. Yes the story of Adam and Eve may seem a little far-fetched but when you put some deep thought into it, what sounds more realistic? A man made from dust and woman made from bone, or a massive explosion that triggered the making of solar systems and everything on this earth, including you and me?

[Capto]

Yes the story of Adam and Eve may seem a little far-fetched but when you put some deep thought into it, what sounds more realistic? A man made from dust and woman made from bone, or a massive explosion that triggered the making of solar systems and everything on this earth, including you and me?

You don't get it, do you? Regardless of whatever created the initial universal mess that was our universe in the first few seconds of its existence, stars, planets, and solar systems are all products of standard classical physics.

There wasn't ever any 'falling perfectly into place' bullshit. There was a visualized equilibrium according to classical physics, and that is what brought the universe to its current state.

[whatsgoinon53]

You don't get it, do you? Regardless of whatever created the initial universal mess that was our universe in the first few seconds of its existence, stars, planets, and solar systems are all products of standard classical physics.

There wasn't ever any 'falling perfectly into place' bullshit. There was a visualized equilibrium according to classical physics, and that is what brought the universe to its current state.

From what I've read about the Big Bang THEORY it says that the whole process was in fact 'falling perfectly into place bullshit.' I don't know what you've been reading but from the many articles I've read it said that it all just happened.

[Capto]

From what I've read about the Big Bang THEORY it says that the whole process was in fact 'falling perfectly into place bullshit.' I don't know what you've been reading but from the many articles I've read it said that it all just happened.

Nope.avi

From my personal research, and with the use of some handy physics papers, indeed, it did just happen. Everything just happens. The flow of time is something that no one will understand. So yes, it all 'just happened', technically. But once the transition from quantum mechanics to classical physics occurred, the laws of physics dictated the expansion of the universe. Star and planet formations, the subsequent steps, as it were, are child's play in comparison. I guess you could use 'falling perfectly into place', as it might be an allusion to the fact that physical bodies wish to reach equilibrium, but I doubt anyone used it in that sense in this thread.

What kind of sources are you reading? I highly doubt any respectable academic figure would ever presume that anything, the expansion of the universe included, has ever 'fallen perfectly into place'. If they did, then, well, they wouldn't be respectable.

BTW I think you might've left the caps lock button on when you typed 'theory'.

[saea97]

I also have no interest in reading A Universe from nothing.

This is your first mistake; an outright, open and (ostensibly) proud refusal to read anything that might prove you wrong can only be described as bias.

I have to agree with Walter on this one mainly because of my belief

Oh, gee. Why even bother with the thread, then?


There must have been a higher power that had the ability to create life.

Why all this "must" nonsense from you guys? For "must" to apply, there has to be NO possible explanation that doesn't require a higher power. Well, Krauss' theory (which does have evidence behind it, in the book you openly refuse to read) is an explanation that requires no higher power.

Yes the story of Adam and Eve may seem a little far-fetched

Yes, so far-fetched in fact that many Catholic priests (hardly known for their progressive notions) admit they never existed. The idea of Adam and Eve as the "first" humans, and the manner of their creation from dirt, is in direct conflict to evolution for a whole host of reasons. Wouldn't it be so much easier for you to just say they're allegorical? You really dig yourself a deep and inescapable hole by implying it's "common sense" that the first man was made from dirt and the first woman was made from his rib.

but when you put some deep thought into it, what sounds more realistic? A man made from dust and woman made from bone,

Scientifically impossible.

or a massive explosion that triggered the making of solar systems and everything on this earth, including you and me?

Scientifically possible. There's your answer to "what sounds more realistic".

Your ignorance of the Big Bang Theory and your hypocritical attitude towards evidence in no way validate creation.

[Gigablue]

Personally I don't believe the Theory of the Big Bang. I don't see the possibility of a supernova explosion being able to create planets and a solar system. I don't see how those planets could automatically orbit around the sun and I don't see the possibility in that supernova creating a planet at the perfect distance from a star that we know as the sun so that it can sustain life.

Do you even know what the big bang theory states? It doesn’t say anything about a supernova creating the universe. It was an explosion of space-time, combined with a massive amount of energy. Due to energy-matter equivalence, over time the energy formed particles which combined to give us what we see today.

It just seems like scientists looked at the universe from a telescope, saw that it'd was drifting apart, and assumed it must've been doing that since the beginning of time, so logically at the beginning of time they would think all the matter there was was in a compact little ball. To this I say: First, why do we assume that the unverse has always been drifting apart. Second, if that's the beginning of the universe, how'd that ball of matter get there?

If that were the nature of the evidence, I would agree that is was weak. However, we have good reason to assume the universe is expanding. We can see that the universe is drifting apart due to the redshift of distant galaxies. We can also see the cosmic microwave background radiation which fits the predictions of the big bang perfectly.

We assume that the universe has always been drifting apart because the alternative makes no sense. If the universe had not always been drifting apart, why is it doing so now? It can’t have just started to move spontaneously.

There was no original matter. It was a quantum vacuum fluctuation.

Some higher force or being must've created the universe. There's no other explanation.

This is an argument from ignorance. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you can suppose a god did it.

firstly it is just a theory

Do you even know what a theory is? They are explanations of scientific facts. Other theories include gravity, general and special relativity, and the germ theory of disease. Are those “just theories”?

I don't think we can know what created the universe. I do know it's definatly a higher power of some sort, however. It just gets me when people saw "the Big Bang created the universe." No, it didn't. IF the theory is correct, it doesn't explain where the intial bit of matter came from.

You assume something created the universe, but you don’t consider a spontaneous creation. The universe arose due to a quantum fluctuation. The model that we use to describe that process is the big bang theory.

that's the dilemma, no matter what people believe, nothing explains where god or the original piece of matter came from

There was no original matter. You had nothing, and then due to a quantum process, they universe formed spontaneously.

You think the universe just happened? Nothing triggered it?

Yes.

I have not read A Universe From Nothing and have no particular interest in doing so; however, the quantum-vacuum-to-matter-and-antimatter theory still begs the question of what happened before the quantum vacuum was created. If it's unstable, it couldn't have existed forever, so what was before that? Current science states that everything must have a cause in something else, so it seems like in order for the universe to be created, it would require something that can exist without an external cause (in other words, God). That, or some sort of infinite time loop in which the universe was caused by a previous universe's destruction.

Firstly, nothing happened before the big bang, since space-time didn’t exist. How can you have a before without a time dimension? Also, the universe needs no cause. Everything needs a cause, but the universe is not a thing, it is a set of things. To say the universe needs a cause is to commit a compositional fallacy.

But what was the quantum vacuum before it was a quantum vacuum? And if it was a quantum vacuum forever, what caused it to decide to suddenly change?

The idea of “before” makes no sense without time. Also, nothing caused the quantum fluctuation. Phenomena on the quantum level can happen at random, without needing a cause.

I don't necessarily believe in The Big Bang Theory (Or any scientific theory regarding the beginning of the universe) or Creationism.

I personally find it way too convenient that things just so happened to miraculously fall into place and work out all perfect and good. And I find the idea that something can come from nothing to be outlandish as well. Again, these are both in my personal beliefs.

I suppose my own beliefs would revolve around a mix of Creationism and The Big Bang Theory, not relying solely on one or the other.

It does seem that the universe was man just for us, but think about if it were not. We wouldn't be here to think about it. Life can only exist in a universe that can support life, therefore it seems like the universe was made for us.

Many people have theorized that there are infinitely many other universes. Only those that can support life have intelligent life to comment on the perfections of the universe.

Okay, so automatically wasn't the right word. I also have no interest in reading A Universe from nothing. I have to agree with Walter on this one mainly because of my belief but also because of the logic behind his answer. There must have been a higher power that had the ability to create life. Yes the story of Adam and Eve may seem a little far-fetched but when you put some deep thought into it, what sounds more realistic? A man made from dust and woman made from bone, or a massive explosion that triggered the making of solar systems and everything on this earth, including you and me?

There is no need for a higher power to create life. It can form spontaneously given the right elements and energy. Also, that has nothing to do with the big bang. You are talking about abiogenesis.

[Sydneyy]

I don't believe in the Big Bang it sounds like a load of crap. I'm more comfortable saying God created us.

[Jess]

I don't believe in the Big Bang it sounds like a load of crap. I'm more comfortable saying God created us.

And where's the proof of that?

[saea97]

I'm more comfortable saying God created us.

That's fine. Nobody wants to force anyone to believe something they're not comfortable with. Do yourself the favour, though - have the self-respect, even - to admit that this is blind faith and that you're ignoring science to continue said blind faith.

[Harry Smith]

I don't believe in the Big Bang it sounds like a load of crap. I'm more comfortable saying God created us.

Load of crap? So the idea about a man in the sky is more correct?

[SCHS1998]

I personally believe that we as humans do not have the mental capacity to even begin to try to understand where God came from.

Let me clarify, I am a Christian and do believe in God, but it surpasses all human understanding to even try to begin to figure out where the supreme creator came from.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[CyrustheGreat]

I think that something created the universe, but after that it just sat back and watched what it made, not interfering with it. Who knows, maybe 'it' has done this countless times, or maybe its the first run?
Btw, i do not have a religion and do believe the universe wad created by the big bang.

[darthearth]

I personally believe that we as humans do not have the mental capacity to even begin to try to understand where God came from.

Let me clarify, I am a Christian and do believe in God, but it surpasses all human understanding to even try to begin to figure out where the supreme creator came from.

This.

I think that something created the universe, but after that it just sat back and watched what it made, not interfering with it. Who knows, maybe 'it' has done this countless times, or maybe its the first run?
Btw, i do not have a religion and do believe the universe wad created by the big bang.

and This.


I believe both common sense and the science indicates the Universe has resulted from a purposeful and deliberate intervention by way of chosen physical laws into a near infinite energy store and not just a mere random vacuum instability by itself, despite whatever mathematical imaginings Krauss has come up with to preserve his atheist belief system.

[saea97]

I believe both common sense

Not necessarily applicable where quantum physics is concerned; certainly, our ideas about classical physics break down.

and the science indicates the Universe has resulted from a purposeful and deliberate intervention by way of chosen physical laws into a near infinite energy store and not just a mere random vacuum instability by itself,

This is entirely your opinion.

atheist belief system.

Atheism is a rejection of the claims of theism, as you presumably know. This phrase that you have hammered into your skull (and are keen to drop into every post) is a nonsequitur.

Also, as an aside, given your affirmation of this previous quote:

"I think that something created the universe, but after that it just sat back and watched what it made, not interfering with it. Who knows, maybe 'it' has done this countless times, or maybe its the first run?"

How does this bring you to Christianity? The above is deism (the belief in a non-interventionist Creator God), not theism.

[tovaris]

There is a slight (huge in fact) diference betveen a supernova esplosion and an explosiin lasting to the present day since the actual dawn of time.

[darthearth]

Not necessarily applicable where quantum physics is concerned; certainly, our ideas about classical physics break down.

Yes, but I believe the matter-energy of this Universe had to come from somewhere. I haven't read Krauss, but can probably guess he's just using mathematical tricks to account for all the matter-energy.



This is entirely your opinion.

Yes, but a darn good one.


Atheism is a rejection of the claims of theism, as you presumably know. This phrase that you have hammered into your skull (and are keen to drop into every post) is a nonsequitur.

You are technically correct here too, but if an atheist really didn't hold to the "there is no God" belief, then is it not more likely they would identify as agnostic? I know, I should probably use "materialist belief system".



Also, as an aside, given your affirmation of this previous quote:

"I think that something created the universe, but after that it just sat back and watched what it made, not interfering with it. Who knows, maybe 'it' has done this countless times, or maybe its the first run?"

How does this bring you to Christianity? The above is deism (the belief in a non-interventionist Creator God), not theism.

The God I believe in is mostly deistic, but not completely. He sent Jesus into the world to be our Savior and through the Holy Spirit, answers prayer in select instances per faith and His divine will. Also, I allow for Him to shepherd biological evolution if necessary (which currently I believe He did, until science shows otherwise, but considering science can't come up with a good theory of abiogenesis or even how basic cell division works in detail, it may never happen).

[Capto]

I got a kick out of "chosen physical laws".