The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
It must be very frustrating for you not to understand Quantum physics. That doesn't make it a religion, but - I guess like all believers - you just want to fight huh?
Sorry you don't understand Quantum Physics. It must be very frustrating for you. Why do you want to start a fight again?
Oh - right - to defend your irrational beliefs.
Please explain to me why the Big Bang theory is a religion based on absolutely no factual information. Then explain the flaws in Quantum physics that describe the various phenomena involved and I will tell you what I believe.
I think you should start by defining the terms you are going to use and explaining them - in your own words.
The flaws are not in quantum physics. They are in observed cosmological evidence that contradicts the Big Bang theory.
Go ahead and explain it - in your own words please.
As if janesix is an expert on the Big Bang and Quantum Physics. Like Mark, I'm still waiting for an explanation. Oh don't have one? Or have one that makes any sense? If that's the case, which I'm more than sure it is, then why start o thread on something that you don't have the first clue about?
Religion & Science are not at war on this one. In fact there was NEVER a war. So why are you trying to start a battle?
"fallacies taken as historical truth that perpetuate the ongoing animosity between christians and atheists today. One example is that a scientist does not have to be an atheist." http://ptosis.hubpages.com/hub/ChristianAtheist
"“We have tried over and over again to point out to readers that the big bang theory is not at odds with the Bible nor with the concept of God as Creator.” - http://www.christiancourier.com/article … -gods-word
Stephen Hawking:" ...to hypothesize that your God caused the universe to exist and the Big Bang to occur."
What I'm trying to get at is that a large number of people will believe anything scientists say, whether it makes sense or not. Which they then claim is the Truth. That is religion.
You are correct in the fact that it's an explanation for the cause of the universe; but, that's only part of what it would need to be for a religion... There are no rituals, devotions, moral codes and additional fundamental beliefs with the big bang theory. Also, there is no church or deity to believe in and pray to, which is common with religions.
Also, I don't think everyone just blindly believes what the scientists say, but given the fact that they are working with empirical evidence and the fact that they are willing to admit when they are wrong since they are working with hypotheses and theories; and, will correct themselves as needed merely gives them more credit.
And I think it just boils down to personal opinion on what sounds more logical -- for some it's god/creation based, and for the non-religious folk it's probably something like the big bang; and yet for others, it could be something else entirely.
I understand where you are coming from and I see it a lot. I would think that many people have grown to trust science and scientists which would make them more likely to place belief in their claims.
If a source is always shown to be accurate you would begin to trust it wouldn't you?
I can understand the psychology but I am not one to place trust and beliefs in other peoples claims no matter who they are.
I can appreciate the possibilities and the sincerity, but I also appreciate that noone knows everything.
"I can understand the psychology but I am not one to place trust and beliefs in other peoples claims no matter who they are."
But you do every day. You trust the engineers at (insert car brand here) that your car won't fall apart on your way to work or burst into flames. You trust the engineers at Boeing that their planes will fly reasonably well, and that the pilots won't screw up and crash the plane. You trust the wait staff at a restaurant that your steak isn't actually from a missing union president. You trust that the pizza guy hasn't been driving around with your large with anchovies in his trunk for three weeks.
In order for us to survive as a society, we have to trust other people as much as they have to trust us.
The difference is scientists don't say "Trust me, I'm a scientist" or "Believe me or be doomed for eternity!" They say "This is how we think it happened. Here's the evidence. Here are experiments by our peers that verify what we have hypothesized." Scientists don't expect people to take things on faith. That is the antithesis of science.
I expect none of us here are cosmologists or theoretical physicists, so for the layman to "believe" in a theory like the Big Bang does take a little faith, for lack of a better word. But we have faith in science because scientists have provided evidence, and we know that other scientists have tested their hypotheses and said "Yeah, that sounds right." We trust our doctors that this antibiotic will cure that embarassing itch because we know that they have been trained and that the antibiotics perscribed have gone through clinical trials, etc. Whereas if we meet a dude in the parking lot at a Phish concert who offers us a remedy for that itch, we might be a little reluctant, and justifiably so.
That Stephen Hawking quote seemed somewhat incomplete don't you think?
Yes it was incomplete because Hawking updated his opinion about what he said earlier. "Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God • Physics, not creator, made Big Bang, new book claims • Professor had previously referred to 'mind of God'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ … ng-creator
Sure. I also believe in Bernoulli's equation, relativity, cause and effect, gravity, etc.
I accept the big bang theory as highly possible given the evidence for it although I am aware that there is plenty that we don't know about the universe so there is always the possibility that it didn't happen as expected.
The big bang is a not too accurate representation of what can be better described as "the emerging".
This is the beginning of time but not God.
It is the proccess where by this heaven and earth coming into being. Prior to their emerging, they existed as a void beneath the sea.
From the midst of the earth comes all other things, this is where the big bang since with creation.
And since everything is changing, adapting, give rise to the idea of evolution.
But both fails because they have not provided a principal and ultimate purpose for these things and their failure is expected because they presume everything to be subjected to time and everything consist of matter.....
But since it is not so, they are unable to see beyond the two...time and matter.
The question should be
1. Do you believe big bang occurred? Or
2. Do you believe in the scientists who propound 'big bang'? Or
3. Do you think big bang is a rational theory?
1. No. No evidence
2. No. False premises
3. No. Creation is not rational.
On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence the Big Bang occurred. Astronomers didn't pull the idea out of their butts.
Excuse a christians lack of logic and reasoning, they were never taught any different...
There is no 'evidence'. Simply extrapolating Doppler shift of sound to light is not evidence.
I typed it into Wikipedia, and thought "Why am I getting Cole Porter?" I typed "Big Band" by accident. Here is some evidence (of the Big Bang, not the Big Band): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#O … l_evidence
Redshift is evidence that galaxies are traveling away from us, so therefore they must have been closer. The farther back in time you go, the closer they were. Go back far enough, and they would have been touching
Yes, it's extrapolation, but it's also extrapolation to say that a baseball traveling away from you was closer to you in the past. From that you could conclude that you might have throw it, or that it might have bounced off your head because you weren't paying attention to the game because you were playing Angry Birds on your new smart phone.
I'm fed up of this nonsense. Sound is a wave, a vibration of matter. There is no 'matter' for light to be a wave. The farther the source the more red shifted the light is. The more cosmic dust through which light pass through, the more the red shift. And not all galaxies are red shifted. Big bang is a disguised creation theory, just like ID is a disguised creation theory, a catholic invention.
OK, whatever. Light is both a particle and a wave.
I wouldn't call the Big Bang a disgused creation theory, since there is actual evidence for the Big Bang and none for creation. You did follow the link I posted, didn't you?
It is bad assumption that those who criticize, has no idea, hence they criticize.
You are trying to tell me that big bang is rational theory then why you tell me illogical stuff?
Light is not a particle, particle theory was debunked long ago. Light is not a wave since nobody has proposed the medium for the wave and light has some properties a wave doesn't got. So if you are telling me the particle of light is travelling in wave pattern, then you have to tell me why that particle chose a wave like itineray and not the normal straight path. Since light is not a wave and sound is a wave you can not extrapolate the property of sound to light.
A light source very far away is red shifted, it doesn't mean that source is moving away. Light travelling through dust also is red shifted, if universe is expanding all galaxies should be red shifted but there are blue shifted galaxies.
Before big bang the universe was like a ball and space was inside the ball, then what gave shape to the ball?
Space is borderless- then how can space expand?
How time and space, both concepts go inside the ball?
Evidence is a two edged sword, it Depends on the talent of the lawyer, that whether the Evidence is for or against the accused.
I believe in the big bang. I think science supports it. We know the earth is expanding, and other reasons through science and technology we know there was a beginning. This is what the big bang was. It lines up with both science, and the idea of an intelligent designer. Having a creator isn't negated by the big bang at all, and rather supports it I think.
Now that said, both sides believe in the big bang, and still disagree on a lot of things!
The Big Bang occurred, whether one accepts it or not. It doesn't matter whether I believe it or not. There are many pieces of evidence that suggest the Big Bang occurred. For example, astronomers have seen that galaxies have a red shift in their visible light. In other words, where the light from them should be white, it's a little red. The reason for this is that when objects move away from us at high speeds (such as a quarter of the speed of light) the light waves emitted from them are stretched, not unlike how the sound of a car horn gets lower in pitch as the car passes us. All galaxies have this red shift, and the galaxies which are farther away are more redshifted. What this means is that these galaxies are all moving away from us, which leads one to conclude that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, it follows that it was once smaller. Rewind 14.7 billion years, and the 'verse is now quite small, but expanding rapidly.
Rather than droning on, I suggest you read a blog series called "The Big Bang for Beginners" by CWRU physicist Mano Singham. You can find it here: http://blog.case.edu/singham/big_bang_f … ners/index
I had trouble getting the link to work. If it doesn't for you, let me know and I can send you a pdf of it.
I think that there are other answers that would serve to challenge the BBT, but religion is not one of them.
They would be based on better scientific principles and knowledge than we have today.
No it's not religious, it was just accepted by the pope and that's why everyone else bought into it. Google works for all sorts of imformation, no offense, just thought I'd call out your facts for you. We don't want people spreading disimformation, do we?
It's funny how some people will believe anything scientists say. Like Dark Matter. If your theory doesnt work, make something up.
Why are there 70 billion year old galaxies if the universe is only less than 14 billion years old?
I don't have a problem with the bang. I would like to know where the dense ball of matter came from.
If you understood quantma physics, chemistry, and quantam mechanics, you would be asking this question.
I agree. And everyone else in between is asking it too.
I think Paul meant "wouldn't," but it's still a valid question. The answer is... physicists are still working on it. Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Kraus both published books recently about this very topic. I read both, and I still don't fully grasp it. Krauss's book was an expansion of a lecture of his from 2009, which you can view here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
I know what he meant. But, I saw an opening and jumped on it.
The point is, that particular moment can not be explained by anything but theory at this time. I'm not arguing in favor of God. Simply patience until we find more information. I do think janesix is right on some level. I get tired of listening to people adamantly insist we have all of the answers.
There is some postulate that the universe started with Higgs boson, a kind of charge, like a negative charge.
An eternal universe is boring, no mysteries no fight with Good and bad, no reward and punishment, no 'special' ones, in fact nothing to write a story on. Who want this banal universe? Who can sell books telling that the universe is not exciting?
Why do "early" stars and galaxies have so much metal content?
Just looking for a fight then? Cannot adequately express the issues you feel make the big bang theory invalid?
This would be why belief in Invisible Super Beings causes so much ill will and arguments.
Please answer my questions, and provide some data rather than asking silly questions. Thank you.
No. You clearly have no grasp of the science involved, and are attempting to defend your ridiculous beliefs by suggesting that scientific beliefs are no better.
Until you can demonstrate an understanding of the principals involved, I will not.
This is why irrational beliefs in majik cause so many wars.
I will definitely provide some data on dark matter for you, just as soon as scientists come up with any.
Dark matter was explained by Stephan Hawkin (to name one), years ago. Where were you?
Sure Paul, steven hawking explained that dark matter consists of indescribable, undetectable hypothetical particles.
Are you scientifically literate? Take the quiz
You may have an opinion on climate change, evolution education, stem-cell research, and science funding. But do you have the facts to back up your opinion? This quiz will test your basic scientific literacy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1 … atmosphere
If you score 85 or better then maybe we can all have a discussion about big-bang, infinite dimensions and super string theories...... in the science forum .
Right now you are just bear baiting with a spurious thread in order to increase your hub score - correct?
Even if felled down by a wall of bricks
And then crossed the river Styx
There still be no conversation with janesix
The religious dominatrix
Acc to the eqn E+ or -)Mc2 and + stands for matter whereas - for antimatter. Both do exist as per the eqn and many other theories too. No time to explain and since you added this to the religious forum - I'm outta here
My problem with the BBT is not based on religion at all.
My problem is the invention of the singularity as the beginning of the theory without any basis of what, where and how it came to be.
Then for reasons unknown the singularity comes alive.
My point is that the story doesn't start at the beginning, the theory ignores the beginning. And we may learn more if we ever get a Grand Unification Theory.
Again there is no religious belief in my comment.
What beginning is that? You have evidence that there was a time when nothing existed? Where did that come from? Quick - tell me about it - we are a shoo-in for the Nobel prize.
The Nobel Prize lost its appeal when Obama received it.
I would I have to tell you about it quickly.
Mark, My comment wasn't meant to be offensive, but you appear to be defensive, about something that is simply a theory.
The Big Bang makes the universe a zero sum universe, and there is really no way to confirm or deny it.
BTW, where is your evidence that there was a singularity as theorized by the BBT?
I can keep doing this all day if necessary. When are you going to start providing credible sources to back up your claims?
I have scientific proof to back up my claim that the big bang is not real.
1. Throught history the bug bang theory has changed in size. First it was a large ball of matter, Then it was a three inch ball of matter, now it is nothing.
2. If you know science then you understand the atomic theory of matter( the theory that all things are made up of atoms) Then esplain to me how everything is so precise.
3. The big bang theory is associated with evolution. And if needed I can show you why that is irlogical
Boy! What a revelation! I never thought of that! Why? Because nobody, including myself, would waste their time thinking up such nonsense! Please show us how The Big Bang Theory (being associated with evolution) is illogical without referring to Biblical BS.
The Big Bang Theory as origin of the universe is a possibility that is highly probable. I have a Hub "Big Bang Theory, Origin of the Universe, What is the Mystery?" That mystery to me is who put the materials that exploded? David Levy, an American astronomer says that if the mass of the universe were intact (half of it is missing) the universe would collapse to nothing. Does it follow that it came from nothing? That seems logical but is it real, meaning does it have a physical basis? If none and it was only an idea, then whose ideas was it?
All the girls I go out with believe in the Big Bang Theory!
by qwark6 years ago
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened? There are other interesting considerations.
by Make Money7 years ago
I'm sure if you listen to this audio file you'll agree that the Big Bang theory has fizzled. http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/200804 … izzles.mp3-----------------------------------How many academics does it take...
by Csaba Krause4 years ago
A global group of 33 leading physicists have rejected the crank theory of big bang. They have published an open letter in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20, to let the scientific community know that the spirit...
by Cagsil5 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I was digging through some of my research and since a lot of it is philosophy based(meaning it's about answering questions and reasoning), I happen to cross an interesting tidbit I figured I would share with...
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big...
by Csaba Krause4 years ago
During my 10 years' career being a journalist in the heartland of real science (which is Europe), I had the fortune (misfortune as well) to meet great many renowned scientists. I interviewed a couple of them as...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.