Atheists and the Big Bang

[KingMerv00]

I am so tired of fundies telling me that the Big Bang proves God because everything spontaneously sprang from nothing.

The ignorance of this argument is amazing and I'm ready to set things straight. The latest research into the Big Bang has coalesced the scientific community's opinion on the matter. Are you ready for the truth?

They don't know much.

That's it. Notice that "They don't know much" is NOT the same as "God did it".

Anyway, anybody hear any interesting theories about the BB and how it all this fun got started?

[balrog666]

The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed it out.<p.

Beware the coming of the Great White Hanky!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Anyway, anybody hear any interesting theories about the BB and how it all this fun got started? Quantum fluctuation and cosmic inflation are the currect hypotheses.

[espritch]

Brane theory also has some supporters (big hyper-dimensional membranes crashing into each other to produce big bangs). Personally I don't understand most cosmological big bang origins theories well enough to know if they have any merit. For the time being, I think the "They don't know much" response is pretty accurate. This may of course change in the future.

[KingMerv00]

Anyone hear anything recently on the "Big Bounce" theory?

[Nex]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Anyone hear anything recently on the "Big Bounce" theory?
< bad joke >

"Baywatch" had nothing to do with the origin of the universe, although theories on David Hasslehoff's age may conflict that.

< /bad joke >

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I am so tired of fundies telling me that the Big Bang proves God because everything spontaneously sprang from nothing.

I'm not really into the philosphy of knowledge, but the Big Bang is evidence neither for, nor against their being a creating entity because we simply cannot ever know what happened before the very first Plank time at the beginning.

Any speculation is more in the realm of philosphy than Cosmology.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
I am so tired of fundies telling me that the Big Bang proves God because everything spontaneously sprang from nothing.

The ignorance of this argument is amazing and I'm ready to set things straight. The latest research into the Big Bang has coalesced the scientific community's opinion on the matter. Are you ready for the truth?

They don't know much.

That's it. Notice that "They don't know much" is NOT the same as "God did it".

Anyway, anybody hear any interesting theories about the BB and how it all this fun got started?

I am so tired of fundies claiming the Big Bang never happened.

Ugh... either way they answer, they always manage to be wrong. I don't know how that's possible, but they've done it.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm not really into the philosphy of knowledge, but the Big Bang is evidence neither for, nor against their being a creating entity because we simply cannot ever know what happened before the very first Plank time at the beginning.

Any speculation is more in the realm of philosphy than Cosmology.

I don't think that will necessarily be true in the future. Perhaps some clever guy will come up with a new theory that shows the Big Bang wasn't really the beginning at all.

I don't think there is a need to doom it to philosophy just yet.

[aargh57]

Hello,

I'm always a little hesitant to post about stuff that I admittedly know very little about but I'm very curious about this matter and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this.
Theists claim that God created the universe but when asked who created God they always fall back on the old alpha and omega / divine mystery type of argument. My question is: Instead of some starting point like The Big Bang Theory couldn't the universe just have "always been?" I know we can't comprehend this but has there been any scientific arguments for this? Scientifically, does there have to be a beginning to the universe? After all, there is no end, right? Sorry if I'm just being ignorant here.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by aargh57
Hello,

I'm always a little hesitant to post about stuff that I admittedly know very little about but I'm very curious about this matter and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this.
Theists claim that God created the universe but when asked who created God they always fall back on the old alpha and omega / divine mystery type of argument. My question is: Instead of some starting point like The Big Bang Theory couldn't the universe just have "always been?" I know we can't comprehend this but has there been any scientific arguments for this? Scientifically, does there have to be a beginning to the universe? After all, there is no end, right? Sorry if I'm just being ignorant here.

I'm no expert either but I'll try to help you out here.

Yes, that used to be a way around God before people like Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. If you reverse that expansion of billions of years, everything is crunched into a single point. That is why Big Bang theory is popular.

The toughest part of Big Bang theory is that, at the beginning of time, classical physics goes right out the window. The energies of such a compact system are so high they make no sense. String theory helps resolve some of these issues but I won't get into that because I am not expert on string theory.

Now what happened before the Big Bang? Was there time before the Big Bang? The simple answer is this: We just don't know.

Will we ever know? We don't know.

Was God the cause of the Big Bang? He isn't needed but that sort of thing cannot be proven or disproven anyway.

Was Uranus (the god not the planet) the cause of the Big Bang? He isn't needed but that sort of thing cannot be proven or disproven anyway.

My point here is that the Big Bang and the Christian God are basically unrelated unless you want to read the Bible literally in which case, the Bible is wrong.

[wollery]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Yes, that used to be a way around God before people like Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. If you reverse that expansion of billions of years, everything is crunched into a single point. That is why Big Bang theory is popular.

The toughest part of Big Bang theory is that, at the beginning of time, classical physics goes right out the window. The energies of such a compact system are so high they make no sense. String theory helps resolve some of these issues but I won't get into that because I am not expert on string theory.

Now what happened before the Big Bang? Was there time before the Big Bang? The simple answer is this: We just don't know.

Will we ever know? We don't know.

Was God the cause of the Big Bang? He isn't needed but that sort of thing cannot be proven or disproven anyway.Just to add to the above, relativity actually requires the Universe to be non-static (a result that Einstein hated). In fact, Newtonian gravity pretty much requires it too!

Also we have no idea whether or not the Universe will end. There are three possibilities;
1. Closed Universe - the Big Crunch, the Universe contains enough mass to halt and reverse the expansion with the result that everything comes back to the point singularity from whence it came.
2. Open Universe - The Universe does not contain enough mass to stop the expansion and continues forever, resulting in the heat death of the Universe (the Universe slowly cools to a nice even temperature - serve with fries and a side salad :p ).
3. Flat Universe - The Universe has exactly the right amount of mass to halt the expansion at an infinite amount of time in the future. Also results in heat death and seems utterly nonsensical to me, but is the favoured scenario for almost all cosmologists (partly because it makes the maths a little easier :D ).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

Anyway, anybody hear any interesting theories about the BB and how it all this fun got started? Yes, there was a time (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45671) before the Big Bang.

[KingMerv00]

From Iacchus's link:

"Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists. Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time. However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this, otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion? And what would be the difference between that and say, "rolling out the carpet" (so to speak) with its inherent design? Isn't that in effect what DNA does, the inherent blueprint or code that tells the body what to do? So, if all we have is the immaterial dimension -- ever wonder where we go in our dreams? which, are merely an extension of thought and of the same dimension -- then the only possible thing we can have in the physical sense is stillness which, is an expression of the moment and, extended unto Eternity."

I don't think I understand this entirely but isn't an "immaterial universe" an oxymoron?

Our senses observe the universe. If there is an afterlife we would merely be sensing a universe with different rules.

If there was a time before what we call the material universe, that just means the universe was different before the Big Bang.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

I don't think I understand this entirely but isn't an "immaterial universe" an oxymoron?Well, if something exists in another dimesion, how could it be viewed as material, at least in our dimension? And, while it may have influx into our dimension, it doesn't manifest itself into our dimension.


Our senses observe the universe. If there is an afterlife we would merely be sensing a universe with different rules.Yes.


If there was a time before what we call the material universe, that just means the universe was different before the Big Bang. Essentially yes ... that the material universe pre-existed in another dimension.

[Dr Adequate]

As I understand it, "What was before the Big Bang?" makes about as much sense, in Einstein's concept of spacetime, as asking "What's due north of the North Pole?"

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Essentially yes ... that the material universe pre-existed in another dimension.

And by what means do you know ANYTHING existed before the big bang.

[alfaniner]

Interesting that most fundies that try to explain the origin of the universe probably don't even know how many planets there are in the solar system.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

As I understand it, "What was before the Big Bang?" makes about as much sense, in Einstein's concept of spacetime, as asking "What's due north of the North Pole?" Believe what you want to believe. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
And by what means do you know ANYTHING existed before the big bang. You almost got it right in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870700572#post1870700572), when you suggested the only choice we have is to believe in ourselves.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Believe what you want to believe. ;)

...and then go to hell because God hates for you to make honest mistakes about the nature of the universe.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You almost got it right in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870700572#post1870700572), when you suggested the only choice we have is to believe in ourselves.

You don't seem to understand.

I'm sure I exist. I'm pretty sure you do too. I'm pretty sure God doesn't. I'm basically positive that gravity will continue to work normally for the next few seconds.


Since we are on the subject, how do you KNOW God exists. By a feeling?

Here are two possibilities:
1) God exists and you are right.

2) God doesn't exist and you are wrong.

Why is number 1 more probable than number 2? You lack physical, repeatable evidence so you depend on subjective emotions which I cannot share with you.

Why do you hold your emotions above mine?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by KingMerv00

You don't seem to understand.

I'm sure I exist. I'm pretty sure you do too. I'm pretty sure God doesn't. I'm basically positive that gravity will continue to work normally for the next few seconds.

Since we are on the subject, how do you KNOW God exists. By a feeling? Yes, and it used to be self-evident that the earth was flat, so? And now, it's almost as plain as the nose on our face (self-evident) that it's round, correct?

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and it used to be self-evident that the earth was flat, so? And now, it's almost as plain as the nose on our face (self-evident) that it's round, correct?

Something that is self evident can be shown to be true without any outside evidence.

The idea that the earth is round is not self-evident, it never has been. It is a well substantiated and commonly held belief. I happen to find its probability to be very high.

[Pixel42]

Originally posted by wollery
There are three possibilities;
1. Closed Universe - the Big Crunch, the Universe contains enough mass to halt and reverse the expansion with the result that everything comes back to the point singularity from whence it came.
2. Open Universe - The Universe does not contain enough mass to stop the expansion and continues forever, resulting in the heat death of the Universe (the Universe slowly cools to a nice even temperature - serve with fries and a side salad :p ).
3. Flat Universe - The Universe has exactly the right amount of mass to halt the expansion at an infinite amount of time in the future. Also results in heat death and seems utterly nonsensical to me, but is the favoured scenario for almost all cosmologists (partly because it makes the maths a little easier :D ).

The recent discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing as was expected, means that the universe is almost certainly open.

At some point the universe will have expanded to the point where it is essentially empty. The conditions will then be right for another quantum fluctuation, like the one we call the Big Bang - "nothing" will spontaneously decay into matter and vacuum energy, which together add up to nothing - and another universe will spring into existence.

So this scenario suggests we live in a single universe within a multiverse which consists of an infinite number of universes, each of which begins, inflates, expands and ends, but with no absolute beginning or ending.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and it used to be self-evident that the earth was flat, so? And now, it's almost as plain as the nose on our face (self-evident) that it's round, correct? I'm sorry? :confused:

When exactly was it ever "self-evident" that the Earth was flat?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery

I'm sorry? :confused:

When exactly was it ever "self-evident" that the Earth was flat? Would you suggest it's self-evident that the earth is round then? It's relatively simple to explain isn't it? I think to the extent that one becomes familiar with the evidence, then at that point it becomes self-evident.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would you suggest it's self-evident that the earth is round then? It's relatively simple to explain isn't it? I think to the extent that one becomes familiar with the evidence, then at that point it becomes self-evident. Well you're the one that said that it used to be self-evident that the Earth was flat. So I think it's up to you to explain what you meant by that statement.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Would you suggest it's self-evident that the earth is round then? It's relatively simple to explain isn't it? I think to the extent that one becomes familiar with the evidence, then at that point it becomes self-evident.

His point is that it was always assumed that the earth was flat. The earth was then *proven* to be round.

You assume that a god exists...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery

Well you're the one that said that it used to be self-evident that the Earth was flat. So I think it's up to you to explain what you meant by that statement. What else would you call it then if everybody understood that this was so? Now, it wasn't until somebody else assumed differently and proved it, that we've come to understand that the earth is round. So, is it now self-evident that the earth is round? Of course it is.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, is it now self-evident that the earth is round? Of course it is.
No. It isn't. That's why we have to be told, as children. I would not, of course, presume to set limits on your all-encompasing genius, but I don't think I'd have figured it out for myself.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Believe what you want to believe. ;)
When it comes to physics, I prefer to believe what physicists tell me. It reduces my chances of being completely wrong. You should try it.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, is it now self-evident that the earth is round? Of course it is. Really? It doesn't look round to me.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

No. It isn't. That's why we have to be told, as children. I would not, of course, presume to set limits on your all-encompasing genius, but I don't think I'd have figured it out for myself. There comes a time however, when we understand, and at that point it becomes self-evident.


When it comes to physics, I prefer to believe what physicists tell me. It reduces my chances of being completely wrong. You should try it.Wrong about what? God? If, in fact God does exist, don't you think that would have some bearing on the Big Bang? Of course that might mean we would have to rethink a few things now wouldn't we? ;)

[wollery]

Originally posted by RussDill
His point is that it was always assumed that the earth was flat. The earth was then *proven* to be round.Yeah, but here's the thing, the Earth wasn't always assumed to be flat. The ancient Greeks not only knew that it was round, they actually knew how big it was, and how far it was to the Sun. (Okay, so their Solar distance measurement may have been off by a factor of a few, but that's still pretty good going.)

It's also a myth that mediaeval sailors thought that they would fall off the edge of the world if they sailed too far. It was the theologians who decreed that the Earth was flat, and it didn't do to contradict the charch in those days. On a clear day you can watch land appear to rise out of the sea as you approach it (or sink as you leave it). If the surface of the Earth were flat it would simply not do that, and the sailors knew this. They were afraid of getting lost, or eaten by seamonsters, or sunk in treacherous waters, and until the late middle ages very few ships ventured out of sight of land, unless they were certain of their course.

So guess what, the ignorance, and its enduring myth are due to the christian church. Who'd've thunk it.

You assume that a god exists... :D :D

[TragicMonkey]

"Self-evident" doesn't mean "obvious". It means that once presented with a fact, you don't require evidence to believe it. But that doesn't mean the fact's "obvious" truth was obvious before the fact was drawn to your attention.

The world being round, or flat, or doughnut-shaped is not self-evident, because you have to think of evidences and reasons for those positions. It invites explanation and examination.

The color red being different from the color green is self-evident (unless you're colorblind, or regular blind).

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
There comes a time however, when we understand, and at that point it becomes self-evident.
No. Something is "self-evident" if we don't need to be told. We needed to be told that the earth is spherical. In order that anyone should know this, some brainy person had to figure it out. It was not self-evident. It is self-evident that the world is flat and stationary. And also false.
[QUOTE][B]Wrong about what?
Physics, obviously.
God? If, in fact God does exist, don't you think that would have some bearing on the Big Bang?
Yes... and on everything else. But why bother your mind about counterfactual hypotheticals?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

No. Something is "self-evident" if we don't need to be told. We needed to be told that the earth is spherical. In order that anyone should know this, some brainy person had to figure it out. It was not self-evident. It is self-evident that the world is flat and stationary. And yet once we understand something we don't need to be told. So why is it not self-evident in that sense? Oh, and why are some things self-evident to some folks and not self-evident to others? Why is it not self-evident for a newborn infant not to know who his mother and father is, and yet after a time it is?


And also false.Well, perhaps what I'm referring to here is common sense then? The main thing is that the person has the capacity to acknowledge it for his or herself. In which case, yes, it still becomes evident to oneself. Which is a fact, whether it's commonly expressed this way or not. To me, something which is self-evident, is something you can immediately act upon, without any additional reasoning or input. Why? Because you know it for a fact.


Physics, obviously.And yet I grant you, to each and every one who posts on these forums, that the world we live in is material.


Yes... and on everything else. But why bother your mind about counterfactual hypotheticals? Why ask why? And what if it does bother me?

[Robin]

Wollery
It's also a myth that mediaeval sailors thought that they would fall off the edge of the world if they sailed too far. It was the theologians who decreed that the Earth was flat, and it didn't do to contradict the charch in those days
This is also a myth. The early Christian leaders were not necessarily well educated and some believed in a flat earth but the last hold outs for a flat earth in the Church were around 700-800 AD. Also the old testament sometimes presumes a flat earth.

But in medieval times the Church knew and taught that the earth was spherical. Some even taught that the earth moved.

The idea that the medieval church believed in a flat earth appears to have been invented in the 19th century by Washington Irving.

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Pixel42
The recent discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing as was expected, means that the universe is almost certainly open.

At some point the universe will have expanded to the point where it is essentially empty. The conditions will then be right for another quantum fluctuation, like the one we call the Big Bang - "nothing" will spontaneously decay into matter and vacuum energy, which together add up to nothing - and another universe will spring into existence.

So this scenario suggests we live in a single universe within a multiverse which consists of an infinite number of universes, each of which begins, inflates, expands and ends, but with no absolute beginning or ending.

Does anyone have the slightest clue where the energy for acceleration is coming from?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet once we understand something we don't need to be told. So why is it not self-evident in that sense?
Well, if we came to our understanding of the thing just by looking at that thing, then the thing we've understood is self-evident. If, on the other hand, we had to puzzle over it for years, or ask someone else, then it wasn't self-evident.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by KingMerv00
Does anyone have the slightest clue where the energy for acceleration is coming from?

It would seem to me to be another consequence of the higgs field.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

Well, if we came to our understanding of the thing just by looking at that thing, then the thing we've understood is self-evident. If, on the other hand, we had to puzzle over it for years, or ask someone else, then it wasn't self-evident. But then again at some point some things become more commonplace, whereas prior to that they weren't? So, might I suggest it has more to do with this, and more so in terms of what we understand overall?