The "Big Bang"........

[marv]

For me, circumstantial evidence doesn't count for scientific proof. Good enough for theory, but not proof.

 

[uscitizen]

I was there they say. Or at least my molecules were.

 

[johnrocks]

I don't know exactly how it all happened, I just believe in God and it is only faith, I just can't phantom all this started by some sort of big bang and even if it did...what made the bang?

 

[zzzz]

The big bang is a good theory. It even fits the Bible;
Genesis 1:1-3 :” In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
God initiated the bang and created what we conceive as existence. All the rules of nature, evolution and physics are his plan and are there for all to see. Those who deny that plan are blinded by their own pride and personal delusions.

So what existed before the big bang? What was out there? What is beyond the Universe? It is expanding but what is beyond? Infinity in this physical world, is something that we as mere humans have a hard time comprehending because to us there is always a beginning and an end. Physical life begins at conception (Yes, there is no doubt about that) and ends at death. Eventually the expansion of the universe will stop and then start to contract again. Leaving behind what? A void!

 

[marv]

As an atheist, I don't accept any explanation of creation, ID, creationism, or anything to do with some sort of supreme being(s).

And I don't think the human race is in any position to "prove" that there was a Big Bang - if it ever will be.

To say it is a theory, for most cosmologists, requires the acceptance of the circumstantial evidence of Hubble's discovery of a red shift. But there are other explanations for a red shift.

 

[editec]

Hell folks, GRAVITY is just a scientific theory, too.

Do any of you doubt that it exists?

In science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

All the current evidence supports the THEORY that something like a big bang happened, so that THEORY is long past the vague hypothesis stage.

The big bang THEORY is generally accepted as the best possible explanation yet posited to answer some of the questions cosmologists ask themselves.

And FWIW, current comological science doesn't entirely believe that the BIG BANG was necessarily the first thing that happened, either.

That is to say there appears to be mathematical models which suggest that the BIG BANG wasn't a one (and only one) time event.

But cosmologists do accept the fact that, as yet, the only explanations for anything happening BEFORE the BIG bang are entirely based on mathematical models for which no empirical evidence has been found.

There's theis whole theory that there are multiple universes, and that perhaps black holes might be leaks within our own time space contiminium and that our so called BIG BANG is just one event in that grander MULTIDIMENTIONAL universe.

Now that is JUST A mathematical hypothesis because there doesn't appear to be any empirical evidence to support it.

When speaking about scientific principles, the words "just a" and "theory" don't really make much sense.

When one uses a phrase like "Just a scientific theory" and dismisses it a JUST A theory, one is announcing to anyone who understands the meaning of the phrase, that one is basically ignorant of what the word THEORY actually means in science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hell folks, GRAVITY is just a scientific theory, too.

Do any of you doubt that it exists?

Wrong. Gravity is a fact of life, and there are theories about how it works. That does not make gravity a theory.

In science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

All the current evidence supports the THEORY that something like a big bang happened, so that THEORY is long past the vague hypothesis stage.

The big bang THEORY is generally accepted as the best possible explanation yet posited to answer some of the questions cosmologists ask themselves.

And FWIW, current comological science doesn't entirely believe that the BIG BANG was necessarily the first thing that happened, either.

That is to say there appears to be mathematical models which suggest that the BIG BANG wasn't a one (and only one) time event.

But cosmologists do accept the fact that, as yet, the only explanations for anything happening BEFORE the BIG bang are entirely based on mathematical models for which no empirical evidence has been found.

There's theis whole theory that there are multiple universes, and that perhaps black holes might be leaks within our own time space contiminium and that our so called BIG BANG is just one event in that grander MULTIDIMENTIONAL universe.

Now that is JUST A mathematical hypothesis because there doesn't appear to be any empirical evidence to support it.

When speaking about scientific principles, the words "just a" and "theory" don't really make much sense.

When one uses a phrase like "Just a scientific theory" and dismisses it a JUST A theory, one is announcing to anyone who understands the meaning of the phrase, that one is basically ignorant of what the word THEORY actually means in science.

Other than the first part there, an excellent post.