There was no Big Bang. Don't you think the most logical, intelligent question to ask about the Big Bang would be, 'What was the cause of the bang? The bang was an effect. What created it?
The observed expansion of the universe is not the after effect of an almighty bang. It is the growth, the evolutionary growth.
No Big Bang
Moderator: Moderators
Post #51
Hi...
I'm no expert on the mechanics of the Big Bang, but I believe science operates on the examination of data/evidence and makes conclusions based on the findings.
Ie: fossil records, c14 levels, ice cores, tree ring data, etc.
The reason that there is no known cause for the BB is because at the time of the BB all matter and energy in the universe was compressed into the singularity, and therefore evidence of anything previous to this time period would have been completely destroyed. Speculation may be made of previous happenings but it would be impossible to conclusively prove what triggered it.
That does not mean it didn't happen.
From what i understand there is evidence of a Big bang's existence after that point - the positions and velocities of the galaxies, quantam redshifts, visable stars slowly forming and supernovaing, all lead to the conclusion that around 13.7 billion years ago all matter came from the same point in space.
(first post, i may be making assumptions that aren't true... feel free to correct me if i missed the ballpark)
I'm no expert on the mechanics of the Big Bang, but I believe science operates on the examination of data/evidence and makes conclusions based on the findings.
Ie: fossil records, c14 levels, ice cores, tree ring data, etc.
The reason that there is no known cause for the BB is because at the time of the BB all matter and energy in the universe was compressed into the singularity, and therefore evidence of anything previous to this time period would have been completely destroyed. Speculation may be made of previous happenings but it would be impossible to conclusively prove what triggered it.
That does not mean it didn't happen.
From what i understand there is evidence of a Big bang's existence after that point - the positions and velocities of the galaxies, quantam redshifts, visable stars slowly forming and supernovaing, all lead to the conclusion that around 13.7 billion years ago all matter came from the same point in space.
(first post, i may be making assumptions that aren't true... feel free to correct me if i missed the ballpark)
Post #52
Welcome to the DC&R forums Glee 
A lot can be gained from inference although, as with all deduction, there can never be certainty. It's within this realm of uncertainty where the supernaturalists go about their business. The size of this zone depends on the world-view of its observer. For some the evidence strongly suggests that the zone is small and confined to the spacetime of a singularity, for others, the zone is widened until it fills the whole of spacetime.
The deductive path that leads back in finite time to a finite BB beginning for our universe is extremely sound in terms of being compatible with all our best observations. This should be a big boost for theists of all flavours, yet even this might be too 'techie' for some. If only we atheists could share their insight -- we might have yet another explanation for our existence that doesn't necessitate a supreme creation event.
A lot can be gained from inference although, as with all deduction, there can never be certainty. It's within this realm of uncertainty where the supernaturalists go about their business. The size of this zone depends on the world-view of its observer. For some the evidence strongly suggests that the zone is small and confined to the spacetime of a singularity, for others, the zone is widened until it fills the whole of spacetime.
The deductive path that leads back in finite time to a finite BB beginning for our universe is extremely sound in terms of being compatible with all our best observations. This should be a big boost for theists of all flavours, yet even this might be too 'techie' for some. If only we atheists could share their insight -- we might have yet another explanation for our existence that doesn't necessitate a supreme creation event.
Post #53
So there is plenty of room prior to the big bang for speculation on the cause of it, right? Allowing for thestic and other interpretations as there is a 'beginning', and the possibility of 'creation', as there will never be certainty. Non-thesists would assume a natural cause, thesists can assume a supernatural cause without any conflict, as science cannot know what happened before. So there is no overlap between science and religion in this area unlike that caused by ID or creationism, which directly contradicts the science.QED wrote:Welcome to the DC&R forums Glee
A lot can be gained from inference although, as with all deduction, there can never be certainty. It's within this realm of uncertainty where the supernaturalists go about their business. The size of this zone depends on the world-view of its observer. For some the evidence strongly suggests that the zone is small and confined to the spacetime of a singularity, for others, the zone is widened until it fills the whole of spacetime.
The deductive path that leads back in finite time to a finite BB beginning for our universe is extremely sound in terms of being compatible with all our best observations. This should be a big boost for theists of all flavours, yet even this might be too 'techie' for some. If only we atheists could share their insight -- we might have yet another explanation for our existence that doesn't necessitate a supreme creation event.
One of my very well learned Catholic friends believes that God used the big bang as a method of creation, and has been guiding the evolution of planets and specices to 'create' humans as they are now. It kind of makes a lot more sense than the 'poof!' theory, as it allows God to create using an actual method that we can see and analyse, without interfering in the scientific method.
But yes, if atheists knew as much as what the more religious claim to know, then there could possibly be quite a change to the current ideas behind the BB...
Post #54
The name "Big Bang" is highly misleading. It supports the visual image of a sort of explosion, something that starts from being very small and then suddenly increases its dimensions. It gives the idea of something that is very quiet and static for a while, sleeping, and then, suddenly wakes up. This mental image implies that time flows normally before the BB and then, for an unexplained reason, everything goes apart. If we stick our mind on this model, then we are entitled to ask what happened at that precise moment in time, in order to cause the explosion.
We are looking for a "cause" for the explosion, just because every explosion we are aware of, has a cause.
Inappropriate questions may easily arise from this inaccurate mental image.
I would rather propose the following: given that we can measure that the universe is expanding, we can legitimately imagine to "rewind" the history backwards, in the opposite time direction. The universe becomes smaller and smaller, until it reaches a dimension that is so small that the Relativity laws are no longer valid.
This is the strict definition of the Big Bang.
Going a little bit further back, we can say that in such small dimensions everything was ruled by Quantistic laws.
A physical theory that combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is therefore necessary in order to give an explanation about the transition from a quantistic universe to a relativistic universe.
Up to here, everything is scientific.
All what happened before leaves the field of Science and becomes pure speculation because there are no measurable effects. Even more, the question "what happened before" is a nonsense because there might have been no "before" in the sense we are used to imagine. Our speculations can still be scientific, or be philosophical, or religious. But they remain speculations.
Harrison and Sender should now tell me what in their opinion is not scientific, because I honestly can't see it.
We are looking for a "cause" for the explosion, just because every explosion we are aware of, has a cause.
Inappropriate questions may easily arise from this inaccurate mental image.
I would rather propose the following: given that we can measure that the universe is expanding, we can legitimately imagine to "rewind" the history backwards, in the opposite time direction. The universe becomes smaller and smaller, until it reaches a dimension that is so small that the Relativity laws are no longer valid.
This is the strict definition of the Big Bang.
Going a little bit further back, we can say that in such small dimensions everything was ruled by Quantistic laws.
A physical theory that combines Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is therefore necessary in order to give an explanation about the transition from a quantistic universe to a relativistic universe.
Up to here, everything is scientific.
All what happened before leaves the field of Science and becomes pure speculation because there are no measurable effects. Even more, the question "what happened before" is a nonsense because there might have been no "before" in the sense we are used to imagine. Our speculations can still be scientific, or be philosophical, or religious. But they remain speculations.
Harrison and Sender should now tell me what in their opinion is not scientific, because I honestly can't see it.
Post #55
Hi Glee - and welcome.
A very poor theology IMO.
If it was a just case of god getting it all started then sitting back to watch what happended...but most beleivers are of the opinion that god does more than that. Why would any super being set things up so his playthings could analyse it? In popular parlance this is verging on what is known as 'god of the gaps'. i.e we don't know what caused it so 'goddidit'.Glee wrote:
One of my very well learned Catholic friends believes that God used the big bang as a method of creation, and has been guiding the evolution of planets and specices to 'create' humans as they are now. It kind of makes a lot more sense than the 'poof!' theory, as it allows God to create using an actual method that we can see and analyse, without interfering in the scientific method.
A very poor theology IMO.
The telling word here is 'claim'. Those who have a theistic answer to cosmology know no more than an atheist and often a lot less.Glee wrote: But yes, if atheists knew as much as what the more religious claim to know, then there could possibly be quite a change to the current ideas behind the BB...
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post #56
I never argued the point with her, so I'm not entirely sure of her reasoning behind this... she also believes in guided evolution, Jesus being the son of God, people having souls, and Heaven. That kind of stuff. She doesn't follow the OT and really only takes on board the nice parts of jesus's teaching (the love and the peace, not the homophobic parts). She doesn't attend church with any regularity, or is fundamentalist in any way. (Learned in the med school way, not theological)bernee51 wrote:Hi Glee - and welcome.
If it was a just case of god getting it all started then sitting back to watch what happended...but most beleivers are of the opinion that god does more than that. Why would any super being set things up so his playthings could analyse it? In popular parlance this is verging on what is known as 'god of the gaps'. i.e we don't know what caused it so 'goddidit'.Glee wrote:
One of my very well learned Catholic friends believes that God used the big bang as a method of creation, and has been guiding the evolution of planets and specices to 'create' humans as they are now. It kind of makes a lot more sense than the 'poof!' theory, as it allows God to create using an actual method that we can see and analyse, without interfering in the scientific method.
A very poor theology IMO.
It might be more of a security blanket kinda thing, im not sure. I guess it's more a minimalist interpretation with God doing not a lot, but making sure good people go to heaven, whilst not ignoring the vast amount of scientific literature. Something nice and light to believe in that doesn't have many constraints, with some nice moral guides along the way.
Post #57
Yes, that is the way of science today. What I am saying is that what gave birth to science and the scientific way is the desire to understand and know who and what we are. Are we any closer to this as a result of the efforts of science? Is there any true value in working with what may or may not be true?McCulloch wrote:You misunderstand science. Science is a methodology which is used to assess what is most probably true.Harrison wrote:Yes, it is a pretty good explanation, but is it the truth? Do you think it is possible to discover the truth?
Re: No Big Bang
Post #58I am not disavowing the evidence. I am questioning the assumption about what it suggests.QED wrote:Harrison wrote:There was no Big Bang.
I'm puzzled: Why would you want to disavow the one piece of scientific evidence that points towards a creation event?
Re: No Big Bang
Post #59The Big Bang is an 'old' scientific theory which has been shown to be inadequate in the last 30 years. It is more proper to talk in terms of Inflation theory at the present time. Inflation theory better captures the properties of the universe as we see them and provides solutions to inconsistencies found in BB theory. But it still describes our place in an expanding universe. What assumption are you questioning? It might be solved by inflation...Harrison wrote:I am not disavowing the evidence. I am questioning the assumption about what it suggests.QED wrote:Harrison wrote:There was no Big Bang.
I'm puzzled: Why would you want to disavow the one piece of scientific evidence that points towards a creation event?
Re: No Big Bang
Post #60Thankyou QED, I know very little about this theory however the sound of it sits far better with my own view. Is it possible for you to give me a brief overview, or guide me to a site that may?QED wrote: The Big Bang is an 'old' scientific theory which has been shown to be inadequate in the last 30 years. It is more proper to talk in terms of Inflation theory at the present time. Inflation theory better captures the properties of the universe as we see them and provides solutions to inconsistencies found in BB theory. But it still describes our place in an expanding universe. What assumption are you questioning? It might be solved by inflation...
