[QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=related It's impossible to know what came before the big bang(at this time), just as it's impossible to prove the existence of God. For someone to fabricate an all powerful being and to simply claim that he did it.... That doesn't even make sense.
lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedHFkami
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept.
The big bang merely explains the expansion of the universe from a central point and the slowing speed of that expansion, much like the way energy would expand outward from an explosion. If you believe that the scientific line is that the big bang happened magically, on its own, or without cause, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. But then again, telling someone attempting to prove rudimentary science wrong that they do not truly understand the science they are questioning is fairly redundant.
[QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedFrame_Dragger
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept. The big bang is not a belief. Science 101.
Meh, I've had enough of this whole tug of war argument. Both have flaws in their arguments, yet you ognire your own flaws and keep this blood feud going. My advice: get a life, and figure out your own beliefs rather than trying to grinds others down. Despite what you think, some don't need god, just as some do. Some need rationality while others don't. So just get over it already...
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedNinja-Hippo
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept. The big bang is not a belief. Science 101. I don't follow. The BB is a theory, specifically one which attempts to explain why we observe universal galaxtic recession and expanding space. It's been complication by the discovery of accelerated expansion, and like any theory is probably full of holes and highly conditional. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong, just describing the state of 3+1 dimensions at the hypothetical point when the BB event was still nascent. Belief in that would be a seperate issue, and some have their doubts, especially given the rocky road that Inflation has experienced. Still, it's the best theory which agrees with existing physics and explains large-scale behaviuor and structures in the universe.
[QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedFrame_Dragger
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. . For some reason that reminded me of Ultimecia
Yeah that's a fun argument to use. Why? Because while you can't use it to prove God, it's something science will never be able to explain; the origins of all energy/matter.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedDarthkaiser
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. . For some reason that reminded me of Ultimecia LoL... I sound like a pompous FF villain... :hah:
A lot of times I wonder if these topics are started just to cause a huge flame war considering the large amount of atheist posters here. Kind of like if a metal fan went to the Nation of Hip Hop forum and started a thread on why rap sucks.
Yeah that's a fun argument to use. Why? Because while you can't use it to prove God, it's something science will never be able to explain; the origins of all energy/matter.PS2_ROCKS
[QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedFrame_Dragger
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept. So there could be no cyclic model then? And if there really were no space or time how could the universe start expanding in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="HFkami"]lol so many thumbs down, seems people dont like the truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0DT6uljSbg&feature=relatedthemajormayor
There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept. So there could be no cyclic model then? And if there really were no space or time how could the universe start expanding in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me. There's no way to know for sure, but the evidence continues to mount that the universe is either infinite, or most likely, finite, but that accelerating expansion will prevent collapse. Mind you, as nobody knows what's driving that expansion, there are some who believe that it could actaully REVERSE, and so gravity wouldn't be the major factor and even a very diffuse universe could collapse. Still, it seems that the cyclical model of BB/BC/BB... isn't what we observe. Instead, we can reasonably expect that if the last 13 billion years are a fair indiciation, that at some point in the DISTANT future, everything will undergo primary radiioactice decay, beta decay, be accreted into black holes, cool, be emitted as Hawking Radiation, etc. If that's the case you'd have a universe of homogoenous and isotropic radiation with maximum entropy, no clear arrow of time, and no future except a continuing expansion of space that isolates even individual particles more and more.
[QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"]Yeah that's a fun argument to use. Why? Because while you can't use it to prove God, it's something science will never be able to explain; the origins of all energy/matter.VanHelsingBoA64
So let's just say God did it. No feel free to look into it. Find an explanation that satisfies you. Personally I'll believe God created it until proven wrong and my theory is just as plausible as whatever you come up with.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept.Frame_Dragger
So there could be no cyclic model then? And if there really were no space or time how could the universe start expanding in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me. There's no way to know for sure, but the evidence continues to mount that the universe is either infinite, or most likely, finite, but that accelerating expansion will prevent collapse. Mind you, as nobody knows what's driving that expansion, there are some who believe that it could actaully REVERSE, and so gravity wouldn't be the major factor and even a very diffuse universe could collapse. Still, it seems that the cyclical model of BB/BC/BB... isn't what we observe. Instead, we can reasonably expect that if the last 13 billion years are a fair indiciation, that at some point in the DISTANT future, everything will undergo primary radiioactice decay, beta decay, be accreted into black holes, cool, be emitted as Hawking Radiation, etc. If that's the case you'd have a universe of homogoenous and isotropic radiation with maximum entropy, no clear arrow of time, and no future except a continuing expansion of space that isolates even individual particles more and more. This is the big freeze right?
[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"][QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"]Yeah that's a fun argument to use. Why? Because while you can't use it to prove God, it's something science will never be able to explain; the origins of all energy/matter.PS2_ROCKS
So let's just say God did it. No feel free to look into it. Find an explanation that satisfies you. Personally I'll believe God created it until proven wrong and my theory is just as plausible as whatever you come up with. You make a wonderful statement of faith, followed by an utterly incorrect statement. You believe what you want on the basis of faith, but it's not a theory. What's so wrong about being theistic without having to try and co-opt science? You believe in god, period... end of story.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] So there could be no cyclic model then? And if there really were no space or time how could the universe start expanding in the first place? That doesn't make sense to me. themajormayor
There's no way to know for sure, but the evidence continues to mount that the universe is either infinite, or most likely, finite, but that accelerating expansion will prevent collapse. Mind you, as nobody knows what's driving that expansion, there are some who believe that it could actaully REVERSE, and so gravity wouldn't be the major factor and even a very diffuse universe could collapse. Still, it seems that the cyclical model of BB/BC/BB... isn't what we observe. Instead, we can reasonably expect that if the last 13 billion years are a fair indiciation, that at some point in the DISTANT future, everything will undergo primary radiioactice decay, beta decay, be accreted into black holes, cool, be emitted as Hawking Radiation, etc. If that's the case you'd have a universe of homogoenous and isotropic radiation with maximum entropy, no clear arrow of time, and no future except a continuing expansion of space that isolates even individual particles more and more. This is the big freeze right? I haven't heard that term, but a quick google search says, "yes". This would be the result of endless expansion and 'c' as a the upper limit for causality.
[QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"][QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"] So let's just say God did it. Frame_Dragger
No feel free to look into it. Find an explanation that satisfies you. Personally I'll believe God created it until proven wrong and my theory is just as plausible as whatever you come up with. You make a wonderful statement of faith, followed by an utterly incorrect statement. You believe what you want on the basis of faith, but it's not a theory. What's so wrong about being theistic without having to try and co-opt science? You believe in god, period... end of story. I really have to watch my wording in these threads. From their perspective, my theory should be just as plausible as theirs. From my perspective, the only theory I accept is God until proven wrong, and good luck proving me wrong.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"] No feel free to look into it. Find an explanation that satisfies you. Personally I'll believe God created it until proven wrong and my theory is just as plausible as whatever you come up with.PS2_ROCKS
You make a wonderful statement of faith, followed by an utterly incorrect statement. You believe what you want on the basis of faith, but it's not a theory. What's so wrong about being theistic without having to try and co-opt science? You believe in god, period... end of story. I really have to watch my wording in these threads. From their perspective, my theory should be just as plausible as theirs. From my perspective, the only theory I accept is God until proven wrong, and good luck proving me wrong. I'm not challenging your faith, I'm just saying that it's not a theory; you didn't formulate a testable hypothesis. Rather, you have faith in something that isn't falsifiable, and that's not a theory. You're not asserting a point in the scientific arena, so using that terminology leaves you comparing apples and go-carts.
Sounds like the God of the gaps fallacy to me. Since we still don't know what caused the big bang, god is shoehorned in there as the only correct answer?! We can come up with a gazillion options as to why the big bang happened. And to accept that god must have done it because we don't have a scientific explanation yet is just well.... stupid and irrational. The only logical answer right now is 'we don't know for sure yet'.
Even if we assume that god did it, that doesn't give any answers at all:
- which god did it? the christian god? hindu gods? mayan gods? egyptian gods? - why 1 god? why not 3 or a million? - who says that this god is sentient or consious?
To me it's just silly to believe in a god that's beyond our universe, since we don't even know half of how our own universe works. There's so much explaining to do, even without a god.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"] No feel free to look into it. Find an explanation that satisfies you. Personally I'll believe God created it until proven wrong and my theory is just as plausible as whatever you come up with.PS2_ROCKS
You make a wonderful statement of faith, followed by an utterly incorrect statement. You believe what you want on the basis of faith, but it's not a theory. What's so wrong about being theistic without having to try and co-opt science? You believe in god, period... end of story. I really have to watch my wording in these threads. From their perspective, my theory should be just as plausible as theirs. From my perspective, the only theory I accept is God until proven wrong, and good luck proving me wrong.
That's the thing. You're 'theory' isn't falsifiable or scientific so we can't PROVE you wrong, hence it isn't a theory.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] There is no such thing as "before" the BB... time and space were compactified within whatever singularity or "object" the BB would expand out of. In the absence of any dimensionality, including time, there is no before. You can believe all you want, but it's still faith, not proof by any standard a functional mind would accept.Frame_Dragger
The big bang is not a belief. Science 101. I don't follow. The BB is a theory, specifically one which attempts to explain why we observe universal galaxtic recession and expanding space. It's been complication by the discovery of accelerated expansion, and like any theory is probably full of holes and highly conditional. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong, just describing the state of 3+1 dimensions at the hypothetical point when the BB event was still nascent. Belief in that would be a seperate issue, and some have their doubts, especially given the rocky road that Inflation has experienced. Still, it's the best theory which agrees with existing physics and explains large-scale behaviuor and structures in the universe. It is a theory, one scientists have been trying to create ones to cover errors in it or things it doesn't explain. You might want to look into some of theories, very interesting.
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] The big bang is not a belief. Science 101. DarkOfKnight
I don't follow. The BB is a theory, specifically one which attempts to explain why we observe universal galaxtic recession and expanding space. It's been complication by the discovery of accelerated expansion, and like any theory is probably full of holes and highly conditional. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong, just describing the state of 3+1 dimensions at the hypothetical point when the BB event was still nascent. Belief in that would be a seperate issue, and some have their doubts, especially given the rocky road that Inflation has experienced. Still, it's the best theory which agrees with existing physics and explains large-scale behaviuor and structures in the universe. It is a theory, one scientists have been trying to create ones to cover errors in it or things it doesn't explain. You might want to look into some of theories, very interesting. I really have no idea what you're saying here... you think that because theories are conditional and replaced by better ones that... what? If you mean Brane theory via M-Theory, then I'm familiar with it, but it seems too much like mathematical wanking for my tastes.
A type of theological fallacy in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to discourage reliance on teleological arguments for God's existence.
[QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I don't follow. The BB is a theory, specifically one which attempts to explain why we observe universal galaxtic recession and expanding space. It's been complication by the discovery of accelerated expansion, and like any theory is probably full of holes and highly conditional. I'm not trying to say that it's wrong, just describing the state of 3+1 dimensions at the hypothetical point when the BB event was still nascent. Belief in that would be a seperate issue, and some have their doubts, especially given the rocky road that Inflation has experienced. Still, it's the best theory which agrees with existing physics and explains large-scale behaviuor and structures in the universe. Frame_Dragger
It is a theory, one scientists have been trying to create ones to cover errors in it or things it doesn't explain. You might want to look into some of theories, very interesting. I really have no idea what you're saying here... you think that because theories are conditional and replaced by better ones that... what? If you mean Brane theory via M-Theory, then I'm familiar with it, but it seems too much like mathematical wanking for my tastes. You might be over analyzing my comment a little. The BB Theory is being questioned and other theories exist, some very interesting ones. My comment goes no farther than that.
Big Bang is such an irrational theory.....All of existance came from a super tiny ball of matter that was just there? How could it just be there? Was it on soild ground or floating in absolute nothing? In my own thinking, the tiny ball of matter would have to have a thought process in order to create everything. Think about it. Earth is the only planet with life. We are in the exact perfect length away from the sun to sustain life as humans/animals/plants...If this "theory" was true then scientists are saying everything just happened. That everything that has happened ever was coincidence. It doesn't make sense. But this is all just my opinion.
IMO God made everything. He made existance. He is the reason for everything.
Yeah that's a fun argument to use. Why? Because while you can't use it to prove God, it's something science will never be able to explain; the origins of all energy/matter.PS2_ROCKS
christians simply believe the existing of god is super natural he was alway there which makes him simple a god, the video explains it
Big Bang is such an irrational theory.....All of existance came from a super tiny ball of matter that was just there? How could it just be there? Was it on soild ground or floating in absolute nothing? It doesn't make sense. But this is all just my opinion.
IMO God made everything. He made existance.
ristactionjakso
I believe in God too but the Big Bang happened and was theorized by a Catholic priest. Look into it and stuff.
. 
Log in to comment