You are hardly in a position to issue an authoritative declaration to that effect... ...if your only basis for doing so is a theory - which of course was crafted by human minds, not discovered.
Absolutely. I've been trying to get that idea across on another thread. We can't say what a god is or isn't, or even that there is such a thing. The very best we can do is to understand that our beliefs and theories are nothing more until a time when we can prove them physically. I've always kind of thought of the big bang as a series of bangs, not a singularity marking the start of time. I see it expanding until it collapses back on itself because of some kind of energy that connects all that exists. I can question what happened before the big bang, but every answer to that provokes the same question. We are creatures of time and incapable of understanding an existence free of time.
Big Bang seems to be the most credible right now. (Big Crunch coming?) One needs a lot of faith to espouse The Multiverse Theory. (Where are they? A different dimension? C'mon.) Nothing comes from nothing. A creator is the most likely answer. However, a creator that's beyond our understanding.
Physicists don't have evidence that the t=0 point in the big bang had the universe as a single point. And, as a matter of belief I don't accept the proposition that we can state stuff for which there isn't evidence. I've never heard any justification for insisting that the initial size was zero. And, being basketball size wouldn't invalidate any subsequent evidence as far as I've ever heard.
I'm not going to try to explain the multiple lines of evidence that support big bang cosmology. You can find that. Expansion of the universe does NOT defy natural law. In fact, our universe is expanding today, and at an increasing rate. That is, space itself is expanding - it's not merely the ovement of objects in space. So, the distance between you and me is increasng - but of course we're close enough that it can't be detected. On a galaxy level, it CAN be detected, as each "piece" of space between us an distant galaxies is expanding - causing the rate to become large. One result is that the farthest distant galaxies are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light - thus we will never see those galaxies again. Again, this comes from actual measurement. It was a shocking finding in 1999 that our universe is expanding - and that the rate of expansion is actually increasing.
That is a major difference between creationists and scientists.... scientists acknowledge that there is stuff they don’t know.... and for that matter are willing to change their minds based upon new evidence creationists admit no lack of knowledge.... and never change there minds there is EVIDENCE for the big bang, but no claim of certainty. The Big Bang is just our best guess based on all we CURRENTLY know The so-called evidence of a “creator” is not evidence at all. It is simply a case where confirmatory bias excludes ALL OTHER EVIDENCE. And since there is then no other evidence.... creationism is proclaimed as the only possibility. never the less, in the best case.... a total lack of evidence does not produce certainty about any ones idea about what is “the only explanation”. There was a time when we did not understand lighting. There was a lack of evidence. And lots of people believed there was no explanation other than god. But today there is evidence.... and it turns out that god WAS NOT the only possible explanation. Likewise, our current lack of certainty about the Origin of the universe... and some people’s conviction that god is the “only explanation” .,., does not prove that god actually is the explanation.... any more than he is the explanation for lighting
That's definitely an interesting point. Religions propose there is an eternity. And, big bang cosmology doesn't refute that. There could be a steady state eternity that led to the big bang. The real difference comes when religion injects a creator - raising all sorts of questions for which we have no evidence.
I guess what makes God, God is it does not have a creator? Only temporal creation in time needs a creator. God would not be God if it had to be a creation. Yet those that ask this question are compelled to keep asking it. I wonder why?
This is special pleading. To point out how absurd it is to assert a creator exists, when there is zero evidence for one.
I would not expect you to. Nobody can, because it is all based on conjecture and plausibility. But it is a fine belief, and gives many people comfort.
You can do better than that. Remember that the big bang is irrelevant to the question of first cause, and that science has no way of addressing anything related to a "supernatural".
Hanging a term on the idea in no way makes it irrelevant. It isnt unreasonable as an idea. And it is a valid response . If a creator exists. I favor that there is an intelligence at the core of reality. A very creative intelligence. If this exists it would be out of the realm of science that only measures what is in the creation. So the immeasurable cannot be measured rendering evidence impossible. If IT exists. I don't know if IT exists. I am agnostic. And no one actually knows if IT exists. That is just ego yap. Imo. Consider this. In this vast universe there is no evidence of any life at all. Then I say there may be life out there somewhere...to which you retort that this is absurd for there is no evidence implying this means it does not exist . ha ha. I truly wish that you did know so you could tell us the truth. Man has puzzled over this for ages. So far those that claimed they knew were charlatans and confidence men .
That is the term that defines those who claim to know the truth when it is mere opinion. All knowing when it comes to the answer of an ancient question. It is in the realm of philosophy not science. The realm of metaphysics not physics.
This is from an article by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D astrophysics, at the Forbes website that is worth reading, "There was no big bang singularity". I have copied a few paragraphs of it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ere-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#5d17fa037d81 Almost everyone has heard the story of the Big Bang. But if you ask anyone, from a layperson to a cosmologist, to finish the following sentence, "In the beginning, there was..." you'll get a slew of different answers. One of the most common ones is "a singularity," which refers to an instant where all the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated into a single point. The temperatures, densities, and energies of the Universe would be arbitrarily, infinitely large, and could even coincide with the birth of time and space itself. But this picture isn't just wrong, it's nearly 40 years out of date! We are absolutely certain there was no singularity associated with the hot Big Bang, and there may not have even been a birth to space and time at all. Here's what we know and how we know it. . . . Instead, there must have been a cutoff. We cannot extrapolate back arbitrarily far, to a hot-and-dense state that reaches whatever energies we can dream of. There's a limit to how far we can go and still validly describe our Universe. In the early 1980s, it was theorized that, before our Universe was hot, dense, expanding, cooling, and full of matter and radiation, it was inflating. A phase of cosmic inflation would mean the Universe was: filled with energy inherent to space itself, which causes a rapid, exponential expansion, that stretches the Universe flat, gives it the same properties everywhere, with small-amplitude quantum fluctuations, that get stretched to all scales (even super-horizon ones), and then inflation comes to an end. When it does, it converts that energy, which was previously inherent to space itself, into matter and radiation, which leads to the hot Big Bang. But it doesn't lead to an arbitrarily hot Big Bang, but rather one that achieved a maximum temperature that's at most hundreds of times smaller than the scale at which a singularity could emerge. In other words, it leads to a hot Big Bang that arises from an inflationary state, not a singularity. Every time you see a diagram, an article, or a story talking about the "big bang singularity" or any sort of big bang/singularity existing before inflation, know that you're dealing with an outdated method of thinking. The idea of a Big Bang singularity went out the window as soon as we realized we had a different state — that of cosmic inflation — preceding and setting up the early, hot-and-dense state of the Big Bang. There may have been a singularity at the very beginning of space and time, with inflation arising after that, but there's no guarantee. In science, there are the things we can test, measure, predict, and confirm or refute, like an inflationary state giving rise to a hot Big Bang. Everything else? It's nothing more than speculation.
As a naturalist I agree with you. The observed fact is that elements of the universe are all moving away from one another. While the bang theory is a reasonable explanation for that fact, it certainly isn't proven. However, we disagree in the sense that you view the source of all that is to be intelligent and I view it as the way things are or laws of physics. What caused the big bang? Nobody knows. Your guess is as good as mine.
CBR measurements (observable) support the Big Bang Theory. Many people don't understand what CBR is. It's effectively the temperature of an expanding oven which has had its power switched off
Good article. It reinforces my arguments in this thread. I'll quote a few pertinent examples: A phase of cosmic inflation would mean the Universe was: filled with energy inherent to space itself, projected, speculated, assumed. How can this be 'known!'? How is 'space!' inherently energy filled? Why? How? which causes a rapid, exponential expansion, how? Why? No causal mechanism is proffered, just assertions that stretches the Universe flat, really? A flat universe? gives it the same properties everywhere, who or what 'gave!' anything? Laws of physics were passed at this time? with small-amplitude quantum fluctuations, lovely techno babble irrelevance! that get stretched to all scales (even super-horizon ones), ..the human imagination never fails to amuse.. stretched to all scales? Does this include B flat? and then inflation comes to an end. ..thank Darwin.. i thought it would never end.. This article, while accurately describing the BELIEFS of the 'Big Bang!' theory, has nothing to evidence it, other than conjecture, plausibility, and imagination. It is a fine religio/philosophical opinion, and perhaps it gives some people comfort. But this is not a credible scientific analysis, nor is there any causal mechanism defined, described, tested, or repeated. It is all speculative conjecture, masked in techno babble obfuscation, to give the illusion of 'Science!' .. so the True Believers will bow in awe and obeisance for the great wonders that their god hath wrought.
If space time was created with the big bang from something very small...if there was no space to contain that small point....how could it exist without space? Haha
The universe arose spontaneously (i.e. uncaused) from nothing, because “nothing” is more unstable than something. It began from the size of the Plank dimension, which is the smallest possible size, and in the form of a hot black hole containing all of the potential energy of the universe yet was in a state of maximum indeterminate entropy (chaos). However, the entropy of an expanding black hole increases in proportion to its radius, whereas entropy decreases in isolated (local) structures within. The Inflating universe did not arise from a singularity but came into existence via quantum tunneling (previously described as quantum fluctuation) across a barrier. Waveform energy tunneling through the barrier took on an unphysical state until it emerged on the other side of the barrier having the same amount of total energy but less amplitude [which makes no sense to me]. That’s roughly the explanation given by Stenger, an author of several best-selling scientific books (e.g. God, The failed Hypothesis). He calls this a possible explanation that is in accord with accepted scientific theories and observations and justifies denial of the role of God/Creator (except maybe for the Deist type), especially since there is lack of scientifically acceptable evidence to the contrary. Don’t ask me to defend or explain any part of it. I’m not yet convinced by such high-level jargon.
