No Big Bang

[Being1]

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.

[Sender]

We don't need to know the cause of the Big Bang for there to have been a Big Bang.

And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

Are you saying you don't agree that something can have happenened without us humans knowing the cause? You can't be serious.

No not at all. But this is where we say you have to have "faith" that something DID happen, Which then makes it religious in nature. So if you are going to teach your religion in our classrooms, teach Creation as well.

[micatala]

No not at all. But this is where we say you have to have "faith" that something DID happen, Which then makes it religious in nature. So if you are going to teach your religion in our classrooms, teach Creation as well.

I'm still not following the logic here. Why does it require "religious faith" to believe in the likelihood of the Big Bang, given the evidence we have that the Big Bang occurred.

Let me try another analogy. Suppose you are driving along ta remote highway, and you come across a huge crater in the middle of the road. You do not know how long the crater has been there, or what caused it, but you can obviously see that something happened. No faith is required at all.

You might try to determine the cause of the crater through further investigation, or at least to determine how long the crater has been there and what has happened in the area since the crater was formed.

Now, it may be you NEVER discover the cause of the crater, but are able to determine that it has been there for at least a couple of hours, possibly as a couple of days, and perhaps some other aspects of activities that occurred in the area over that time span (eg. other people have been at the crater before you). The fact that you never discover the cause of the crater does not nullify the other knowledge you have gained, or require any sort of "faith" to accept what you have been able to determine based on the evidence you find.

Obviously, your knowledge may always remain incomplete, but again, I fail to see why this puts the evidence or knowledge you do have in the realm of faith.

[Sender]

No not at all. But this is where we say you have to have "faith" that something DID happen, Which then makes it religious in nature. So if you are going to teach your religion in our classrooms, teach Creation as well.

I'm still not following the logic here. Why does it require "religious faith" to believe in the likelihood of the Big Bang, given the evidence we have that the Big Bang occurred.

Let me try another analogy. Suppose you are driving along ta remote highway, and you come across a huge crater in the middle of the road. You do not know how long the crater has been there, or what caused it, but you can obviously see that something happened. No faith is required at all.

You might try to determine the cause of the crater through further investigation, or at least to determine how long the crater has been there and what has happened in the area since the crater was formed.

Now, it may be you NEVER discover the cause of the crater, but are able to determine that it has been there for at least a couple of hours, possibly as a couple of days, and perhaps some other aspects of activities that occurred in the area over that time span (eg. other people have been at the crater before you). The fact that you never discover the cause of the crater does not nullify the other knowledge you have gained, or require any sort of "faith" to accept what you have been able to determine based on the evidence you find.

Obviously, your knowledge may always remain incomplete, but again, I fail to see why this puts the evidence or knowledge you do have in the realm of faith.

Then should we rename this forum "craterism vs Religion"? The importance of where it all began is more important than where that crater came from. To leap at something as monumental as Big Bang, or Creationism, to leave the first step alone and just start with step two, that isn't science in my book, that is a lie that has gotten out of control, so much so that we dare not talk about it, lets keep it under the rug. Is that what your science teaches? That is the REAL fairy tale.

[McCulloch]

Then should we rename this forum "craterism vs Religion"? The importance of where it all began is more important than where that crater came from. To leap at something as monumental as Big Bang, or Creationism, to leave the first step alone and just start with step two, that isn't science in my book, that is a lie that has gotten out of control, so much so that we dare not talk about it, lets keep it under the rug. Is that what your science teaches? That is the REAL fairy tale.

I feel that you don't understand the philosophy of science. Science recognizes that we will probably never have all of the pieces. We will never have the complete picture. So working from what we do know, scientists postulate answers to what we don't know. Then as those answers are tested, one answer often is shown to be most probably correct. Then assuming the answer that is most probably correct, a whole new set of things we don't know comes to light. Discovering the most probable version of the truth is a long cyclical process, with scientists debating and testing the assumptions every step of the way. Thus far, it appears as if the universe is very old and has been expanding for a very long time. Theoretical physics has pushed back the barriers about what may have happened during those first few micro-seconds but not before that. Does that show that science is wrong or that the scientific method is invalid? No, it shows that science is being done correctly. It is not science when you either say that you really do have all of the answers or when you say that any particular answer is beyond being tested.

[Sender]

Then should we rename this forum "craterism vs Religion"? The importance of where it all began is more important than where that crater came from. To leap at something as monumental as Big Bang, or Creationism, to leave the first step alone and just start with step two, that isn't science in my book, that is a lie that has gotten out of control, so much so that we dare not talk about it, lets keep it under the rug. Is that what your science teaches? That is the REAL fairy tale.

I feel that you don't understand the philosophy of science. Science recognizes that we will probably never have all of the pieces. We will never have the complete picture. So working from what we do know, scientists postulate answers to what we don't know. Then as those answers are tested, one answer often is shown to be most probably correct. Then assuming the answer that is most probably correct, a whole new set of things we don't know comes to light. Discovering the most probable version of the truth is a long cyclical process, with scientists debating and testing the assumptions every step of the way. Thus far, it appears as if the universe is very old and has been expanding for a very long time. Theoretical physics has pushed back the barriers about what may have happened during those first few micro-seconds but not before that. Does that show that science is wrong or that the scientific method is invalid? No, it shows that science is being done correctly. It is not science when you either say that you really do have all of the answers or when you say that any particular answer is beyond being tested.

I understand science is sometimes proven wrong, I just don't see how you can not call big bang or Origin of life as a leap of faith. Christians call it that. Why can't Atheist? If it is anything other than faith, then prove it. It has to be observable, and repeatable or it is not science. Those are not my word but from scientist from your own scientific community.

[ShieldAxe]

We don't need to know the cause of the Big Bang for there to have been a Big Bang.

And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

Are you saying you don't agree that something can have happenened without us humans knowing the cause? You can't be serious.

No not at all. But this is where we say you have to have "faith" that something DID happen, Which then makes it religious in nature. So if you are going to teach your religion in our classrooms, teach Creation as well.

No there's no faith involved. Why do christians conflate science and religion? There's no faith involved in science. When you say that there is you sound so ignorant. You only are opposed to science that contradicts the bible. You are totally biased.

There's some evidence for the big bang. There's none for creationism (creationism meaning god created the universe).

[micatala]

I understand science is sometimes proven wrong, I just don't see how you can not call big bang or Origin of life as a leap of faith. Christians call it that. Why can't Atheist? If it is anything other than faith, then prove it. It has to be observable, and repeatable or it is not science. Those are not my word but from scientist from your own scientific community.

THe last part of this gets to a point I made in another thread.

Many scientists are of the opinion that, in ordinary circumstances, science should be "observable and repeatable." However, I don't think it is fair to say there is universal consensus on this point. Certainly, scientists in different fields will have different perspectives on this.

Science does operate on the basis of empirical or observable evidence, but oftentimes we must make indirect observations. We cannot, nor will we probably ever be able to observe the interior of the sun, or even the full extent of the interior of the earth. However, we can make many indirect measurements and observations which give us a reasonable idea of what might be or probably is going on within both bodies. These ideas are not "faith" per se because they are based on observable evidence, as long as we do not commit to any particular models as being irrefutably true when we in fact do not know that is the case.



This is the case with the Big Bang. We have a lot of indirect evidence that has led to the development of the model. Admittedly, some of the details are quite tentative and their may be a number of variations of the model which are consistent with all the evidence we have. But we are not 'believing in' these models on faith, certainly not on the same kind of faith in 'revealed knowledge' that religion is based on.

You ask "if it is anything other than faith, then prove it." The evidence that we have (see next paragraph) and the documentation of the processes by which that evidence has been examined and the model formulated ARE proof that scientists are not acting simply on faith, even if this evidence does not provide incontrovertible proof that the model is correct. The model does not have to be 'proven' in order to be scientific or not based on faith.

The evidence is partially, albeit very briefly, described in the wikipedia article already cited by Chad. It includes not only Hubble's Laws and the evidence in support of Einstein's THeory of Relativity, but also the existence of the microwave background radiation, and the ratio of light to heavy elements in ... y universe.

Then should we rename this forum "craterism vs Religion"? The importance of where it all began is more important than where that crater came from. To leap at something as monumental as Big Bang, or Creationism, to leave the first step alone and just start with step two, that isn't science in my book, that is a lie that has gotten out of control, so much so that we dare not talk about it, lets keep it under the rug. Is that what your science teaches? That is the REAL fairy tale.

Whether my hypothetical crater is more or less important than the origin of the universe is a matter of opinion ( ), but I would agree with your assessment.

However, whether anyone or no one thinks the Big Bang is important, or trivial, is irrelevant to the questions of whether it actually occurred, or what evidence there is in support of its occurrence. Just because you think it is important to decide whether the Big Bang occurred or not, and you don't want it to have occurred (for whatever reason) is irrelevant.

It is completely unfair and unwarranted to characterize it as a 'lie that has gotten out of control,' or a fairy tale. It certainly has not been proven to be untrue, and a typical fairy tale does not have anywhere near the volume and depth of evidence to support it as the Big Bang does.

The Big Bang is a very good explanation for the data we have, and its predictions have been confirmed in some pretty spectacular ways. Why can't you accept that?

[Being1]

The Big Bang is a very good explanation for the data we have, and its predictions have been confirmed in some pretty spectacular ways. Why can't you accept that?

Yes, it is a pretty good explanation, but is it the truth? Do you think it is possible to discover the truth?

[McCulloch]

Yes, it is a pretty good explanation, but is it the truth? Do you think it is possible to discover the truth?

You misunderstand science. Science is a methodology which is used to assess what is most probably true.

[QED]

There was no Big Bang.

Thank you.

I'm puzzled: Why would you want to disavow the one piece of scientific evidence that points towards a creation event?