I never claimed that the Big Bang is BS, and you either did not read the article, or you have very little understanding of physics.
Quite right, a Big Bang can be a whole lotta fun. But you probably wouldn't try to pick one up. Might hurt your back
I hope noone here is forgetting that even if the big bang theory was correct and it isnt, please explain who created the matter that was already there to explode in the first place. Creation must have a creator. " In the beginning God..." Enough said.
Not a new theory, a new hypothesis posed by a couple of scientists. Far from any kind of consensus. One of the problems with the lack of scientific literacy in this country is that people spot these little blurbs and headlines (usually written to be a sensational as possible to increase website hits) and then don't bother to read (or don't understand if they do read) what's actually in the article. They then move on under the impression of "lol, the Big Bang is BS".
I never claimed that the Big Bang is BS, and you either did not read the article, or you have very little understanding of physics.
Settle down friend. I wasn't speaking to you or about you.
Okay, I'll bite.
All the matter in the universe appears to be expanding away from one point. If all that matter wasn't all at the same point in the poast as you claim it wasn't, the where did the iniverse come from? And why would it be running away from that point?
.
edit:
Matter in the universe is not expanding into space. Space didnt exist at all at the point when the big bang occurred. This is the problem cosmologist face. when talking about what happened at and before the point of the big bang. As space didnt exist so neither did time. And where time doesnt exist. Events cannot take place. This can be solved simply by attributing the paradox itself to the cause.
The space expands and the mass with it. I see people making this mistake everywhere online. Seems only logical that the universe should be expanding into some area. But this logic cannot apply to the big bang. Because nothing existed at the point before it occurred. literally nothing
2 brane universes could have collided,the one we are on is just smoothing out,afterwards.
I hope noone here is forgetting that even if the big bang theory was correct and it isnt, please explain who created the matter that was already there to explode in the first place. Creation must have a creator. " In the beginning God..." Enough said.
There was no explosion. More like the petals of a flower unfolding. Probably beyond light speed. Things are unable to move beyond light speed if they are traveling through space. But, since space didnt exist at the time of the big bang this limitation was not there.
There was no matter until things cooled off abit.
I hope noone here is forgetting that even if the big bang theory was correct and it isnt, please explain who created the matter that was already there to explode in the first place. Creation must have a creator. " In the beginning God..." Enough said.
This line of thought is surprisingly persistent considering it's absolutely derailed if you apply a little bit of logic.
Your claim: the universe must have been created by god because it can't come from nothing.
So the logical follow-up question is what created god? The popular answer is that he has just always existed.
So now we have two possible situations: (1) a universe/multiverse that has always existed in some form or (2) a god that has always existed in some form. Without getting into which is more likely, I just want you to realize that your logic is atrocious.
I hope noone here is forgetting that even if the big bang theory was correct and it isnt, please explain who created the matter that was already there to explode in the first place. Creation must have a creator. " In the beginning God..." Enough said.
Then what created God?
I hope noone here is forgetting that even if the big bang theory was correct and it isnt, please explain who created the matter that was already there to explode in the first place. Creation must have a creator. " In the beginning God..." Enough said.
This is a thread about science. I am sure you can find some religion forum somewhere to discuss your beliefs.
I hope noone here is forgetting that even if the big bang theory was correct and it isnt, please explain who created the matter that was already there to explode in the first place. Creation must have a creator. " In the beginning God..." Enough said.
This line of thought is surprisingly persistent considering it's absolutely derailed if you apply a little bit of logic.
Your claim: the universe must have been created by god because it can't come from nothing.
So the logical follow-up question is what created god? The popular answer is that he has just always existed.
So now we have two possible situations: (1) a universe/multiverse that has always existed in some form or (2) a god that has always existed in some form. Without getting into which is more likely, I just want you to realize that your logic is atrocious.
Or we can present a more simple solution. By defining "God". As the universe/Multiverse. Or as the zero-point state from which the universe/multiverse has formed. After all, no-thing can be greater than the sum of all things :) ...I blame the alcohol for my spelling mistakes lol
Therefore, "In the beginning God..." Enough said." Still works.
In the beginning god sat down at the primordial toilet and took a shit. Hence, the world.
#1, If there was no moment of origin of the universe, all light elements (specially hydrogen) would already have been burnt up in star nuclei and we should see no shining stars. As a rule, all stars die. If the universe has been forever, there should be no more live stars because there should have been no star fuel (hydrogen) left to burn up anymore.
#2, The galaxies are moving away from each other at unimaginable speeds. This is an observed fact, not a theory. If the universe has been forever, the distane between the galaxies should be near-infinite and we shouldn't have been able to observe any galaxy in the univer other than our own.
#3, There is a process known as "radioactive decay" in which some heavy elements gradually break down into smaller elements which are stable and don't decay further. We have lots of radioactive heavy elements still present in vast amounts in the universe (take for example uranium and plutonium found in large amounts on our own earth). If the universe has been since time infinite, all these heavy elements should already have decayed into stable elements and we should not have any uranium, plutonium etc anywhere in the universe.
Now to the debate of God's versus universe's eternity. As a rule, we have to take someone/something as eternal. The problem with the eternity of universe has been discussed in the above 3 points. Matter cannot be eternal because there are several processes acting on matter (fission and fusion being the two most important ones) which only go one-way. The question "If God created the universe then who created God?" appears logical, but in fact is illogical. Using the same faulty rationality, one could ask:
If Edison invented the light bulb, then who invented Edison?
If Sidney Sheldon wrote a novel, then who wrote Sidney Sheldon?
If Microsoft programmed Windows 8, then who programmed Microsoft?
The theme here is that we are made of matter, so we can raise questions about the origin of matter. The presumed creator's (God's) existence is one step above our existence so we cannot ask (or understand) any question about the origin of God. Here is the reason why:
We live in a universe made up of matter, energy, time and space. Assuming God created all these things then God himself would be an entity for whom there is no time or space and who is not made of matter. Can our minds grasp the idea of any such entity who exists beyond the time-space frame? Someone who exists, and yet is not made of matter. Can we claim to truly understand such an entity?
No, we cannot.
#1, If there was no moment of origin of the universe, all light elements (specially hydrogen) would already have been burnt up in star nuclei and we should see no shining stars. As a rule, all stars die. If the universe has been forever, there should be no more live stars because there should have been no star fuel (hydrogen) left to burn up anymore.
Im not sure that is true. Or even what you mean exactly. And there was a time of origin only it is a range of probabilities. Rather than a specific moment.
God is a quantum fluctuation. It improbably popped into existence and made everything. Case dismissed!
Just as soon as we have agreed upon a definition for "God" i think we will have solved the matter.
If "God" is greater than and governing force behind any given thing which exists. Then it stands to reason that "God" is the unified sum of existence itself
#1, If there was no moment of origin of the universe, all light elements (specially hydrogen) would already have been burnt up in star nuclei and we should see no shining stars. As a rule, all stars die. If the universe has been forever, there should be no more live stars because there should have been no star fuel (hydrogen) left to burn up anymore.
Im not sure that is true. Or even what you mean exactly. And there was a time of origin only it is a range of probabilities. Rather than a specific moment.
Stars turn lighter elements into heavier ones (fusion). Hydrogen is their favorite food which they digest into helium. If universe has been since time infinite, shouldn't all the hydrogen already have been consumed up and turned into helium?
A range of probabilities FOR US TO CALCULATE. Yes. The same way as we say "an electron's existence in a number of given orbitals is a function of probability." Yet the electrons exists somewhere. It is only our inability to pinpoint it's exact location.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is also a good example. He states that that the location and velocity of a moving object cannot be derived simultaneously with 100% accuracy. The more certain we get about one of these values, the more uncertain the other gets. Does it mean that there is no specific velocity and location of a moving object? NO. It only means we are unable to deduce both these values simultaneously.
#1, If there was no moment of origin of the universe, all light elements (specially hydrogen) would already have been burnt up in star nuclei and we should see no shining stars. As a rule, all stars die. If the universe has been forever, there should be no more live stars because there should have been no star fuel (hydrogen) left to burn up anymore.
Im not sure that is true. Or even what you mean exactly. And there was a time of origin only it is a range of probabilities. Rather than a specific moment.
Stars turn lighter elements into heavier ones (fusion). Hydrogen is their favorite food which they digest into helium. If universe has been since time infinite, shouldn't all the hydrogen already have been consumed up and turned into helium?
A range of probabilities FOR US TO CALCULATE. Yes. The same way as we say "an electron's existence in a number of given orbitals is a function of probability." Yet the electrons exists somewhere. It is only our inability to pinpoint it's exact location.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is also a good example. He states that that the location and velocity of a moving object cannot be derived simultaneously with 100% accuracy. The more certain we get about one of these values, the more uncertain the other gets. Does it mean that there is no specific velocity and location of a moving object? NO. It only means we are unable to deduce both these values simultaneously.
My misunderstanding.
Not a new theory, a new hypothesis posed by a couple of scientists. Far from any kind of consensus. One of the problems with the lack of scientific literacy in this country is that people spot these little blurbs and headlines (usually written to be a sensational as possible to increase website hits) and then don't bother to read (or don't understand if they do read) what's actually in the article. They then move on under the impression of "lol, the Big Bang is BS".
I never claimed that the Big Bang is BS, and you either did not read the article, or you have very little understanding of physics.