The Big Bang

[Gunny]

Gunny, the possibility that the Big Bang occurred does in no way contradict the existence of God.

Essentially there are three mathematically described ideas about the life of the Universe. First, that the Universe came into existence with the Big Bang and that it did not exist prior to that event. Second, that our observable Universe is just the latest iteration of an infinite number of expansions and contractions, the cusps of these oscillations are Big Bangs. Third that there have been no Big Bang(s) and that the Universe is in a "Steady State." Current empirical observations (measurements) best support the first of these ideas.

This is no place for a discussion of mathematical cosmology so I'll just list some of the observational evidence for the Big Bang.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble (after whom the famous telescope is named) discovered that the Universe is expanding. In particular he discovered that all galaxies (except the local group) are receding from us at a rate that is proportionate to their distance. The further they are away, the faster they are receding.

Data indicates that our position in the Universe is not special. We speak of the homogeneity of the Universe. That is, the composition, or the structure, of the Universe is the same no matter the position of the observer.

The Universe is isotropic. That is, the distribution of matter and energy seems to be the same no matter which direction an observation takes. The sky looks the same in every direction to one part in 100,000.

Radio source data and quasar counts indicate that the Universe has evolved over time. Very deep space measurements show that the structure of the Universe has changed over time.

The existence of uniform background blackbody radiation demonstrates that the Universe evolved from a dense state of uniform temperature. This empirical data eliminated the Steady State theory from serious consideration.

The current distribution of light isotopes of hydrogen, helium, and lithium agrees remarkably well with that distribution mathematically predicted by the Big Bang theory.

These are some of the observations that support the Big Bang theory and diminish the possibility that the Steady State theory is correct. How can we decide between the singular Big Bang and multiple Big Bang theories? We do not know for sure, but the data seems to best support the fact that not only is the Universe expanding, but the rate of that expansion is increasing. When we wind the clock back on the expansion of the Universe to time zero, we find that the Big Bang took place about 15 billion years ago. From that point, the Universe has expanded and the critical question has been: is there enough matter in the Universe to slow through gravitation the expansion and ultimately cause a contraction to yet another singularity and another Big Bang. The answer appears to be that there is not enough matter to slow the expansion. In fact, the expansion rate is increasing.

Does any of this prove the Big Bang theory? No. But as increased amounts of more precise data are accumulated, the support for the Big Bang theory grows stronger. As the clock winds back to time zero, mathematical physics can adequately describe the model to beyond a trillionth of a second just after the actual Big Bang. But there the model breaks down and fails to describe the singularity (as it's called) that existed at the moment of the Big Bang. So we need to develop new mathematics to improve the model.

If the Big Bang is correct, it in no way precludes the existence of God. We cannot say what the singularity was, or what, if anything, existed before it. We are free to propose that all of what we describe is within the realm of God. And no preacher, or book, can tell you different.

I have not questioned whether or not the Big Bang contradicts God. My only comment on the topic is that the Big Bang is a theory, not a proven event. It requires belief just as a creator does.

There are those who claim the Big Bang is somehow more valid than creation simply because science says so. I have only one simple point to make in regard to THAT.

The Big Bang theory requires that from nothing, "something" was created. That, in and of itself, defies science. Nothing is absolute. Matter cannot be created from it.

 

[maineman]

onedomino...I cannot recall a more thorough spanking of RGS. That was AWESOME!

 

[mattskramer]

Another example of research that could go horribly wrong.

Another example of research that could go wonderfully right

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/MelanomaGeneTherapy

In this study, newly engineered lymphocytes were infused into 17 patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. There were three groups of patients in this study. The first group consisted of three patients who showed no delay in the progression of their disease. As the study evolved, the researchers improved the treatment of lymphocytes in the lab so that the cells could be administered in their most active growth phase. In the remaining two groups, patients received the improved treatments. Two patients experienced cancer regression, had sustained high levels of genetically altered lymphocytes, and remained disease-free over one year. One month after receiving gene therapy, all patients in the last two groups still had 9 percent to 56 percent of their TCR-expressing lymphocytes. There were no toxic side effects attributed to the genetically modified cells in any patient.

 

[mattskramer]

If one can fathom an eternal god with no creator of god, then one should be able to fathom an eternal universe (matter) that always existed in one form or another. The universe could have been condensed and concentrated to a size no bigger tan the dot at the end of a sentence. If god could have always existed then matter could have always existed. Just because an explanation as to “what created the big bang” does not mean that an explanation does not exist”. I am not such a fan of the “Big Bang” theory. I am more of a proponent of the pulsating universe – a universe that always existed, expanded (exploded) and contracted and then exploded and then contracted throughout the ages.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If one can fathom an eternal god with no creator of god, then one should be able to fathom an eternal universe (matter) that always existed in one form or another. The universe could have been condensed and concentrated to a size no bigger tan the dot at the end of a sentence. If god could have always existed then matter could have always existed. Just because an explanation as to “what created the big bang” does not mean that an explanation does not exist”. I am not such a fan of the “Big Bang” theory. I am more of a proponent of the pulsating universe – a universe that always existed, expanded (exploded) and contracted and then exploded and then contracted throughout the ages.

And yet your very argument is the same as mine. If you can believe that, why can it not be possible a GOD always existed?

 

[Taomon]

Explain to me what existed before the big bang. Then explain to me HOW what ever that was came to exist. THEN explain why THAT is more believable then my belief in a God.

Who is to say that the Big Bang is not an emanation of love from God?

 

[Taomon]

I made no challenge. Just in case you're not quite up to snuff on the the way the game is played, the challenge was made to provide evidence/proof that the Big Bang actually happened.

Since I have made no claim demanding you accept what I believe, a challenge for me to provide evidence to support what has not been posted is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

There is no proof other than the expansion of the universe. And there is no proof that God exists. Your insistence on proof is futile and a useless excuse to not find common ground.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no proof other than the expansion of the universe. And there is no proof that God exists. Your insistence on proof is futile and a useless excuse to not find common ground.

Your late to the Game Taomon. This thread was started because we have/had a couple people that vehemently claimed anyone that believed in God was ignorant and further that science was the true answer to all. They insisted Science has all the answers.

 

[glockmail]

onedomino...I cannot recall a more thorough spanking of RGS. That was AWESOME!

In your homoerotic dreams.

 

[jillian]

Seems that's an obsession of yours.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evidence of an expanding universe led to a reasonable hypothesis of a 'big bang', but does not prove it. The unnecessary symmetry, perfection, diversity, functionality, innovation, and unexplainable phenomena that has evolved since the "big bang" leads to a reasonably hypothesis of some form of intelligent design having a part in guiding the process, but does not prove it.

But that does not matter using RGS's hypothesis for purposes of discussion in this thread. His observation is sound that it requires as much faith to believe in a 'big bang' occurring some gazillion years ago as it does to believe in a higher power that brought it about.

Three theories of creation: 1) God said and so it happened. (Big Boss theory.) 2) Big Bang theory. (All the matter in the universe was all balled up and exploded.) 3) Vacuum Cleaner theory. (All the parts of a vacuum cleaner are put in a burlap bag and shaken until at some point they come together into a fully working vacuum cleaner--this is possible only with infinite time at one's disposal.)

Of course any of these things could be possible. None can be proved. The anti-Theist would naturally say that the "big boss" was unnecessary and avoid the problem of where all the material of the universe came from. The Theist has no problem with where all the material universe came from and can also reason that the big bang probably happened, but something had to ball up the stuff and then light the fuse. The Theist also has no problem with the vacuum cleaner theory as something had to shake the sack.

And on the last day here, none of us can prove any of it.

 

[AllieBaba]

The question is asked because lately this board has been hit with the " God doesn't exist because you can not prove it" garbage, in fact it has even been more blatant then that. Believers in Gods have been labeled on this board as idiots and fools.


One of the arguments used is " how did God come to be" so I ask, how did what ever caused the Big Bang come to be? If you do not believe in Gods and do not believe in the Big bang, then the question remains, how did things come to be?

As for "proof" it all comes back to what started it all. All science can do is show us processes. It can not provide any answers to the "where did it come from" questions.

The argument that a complex being like God can not exist out of nothing begs the question how did all life actually begin. Science can NOT answer the question. All science claims is that by pure dumb luck we evolved from rocks.

Believers in God are labeled as idiots and fools, as bigoted and worse, and not just on this board.

 

[Taomon]

Your late to the Game Taomon. This thread was started because we have/had a couple people that vehemently claimed anyone that believed in God was ignorant and further that science was the true answer to all. They insisted Science has all the answers.

Sorry about that. For me, and most reasonable people, science is truth and God is love and the two are intertwined.

Anyone who sits on one extreme or the other is just plain blind.

 

[Taomon]

Believers in God are labeled as idiots and fools, as bigoted and worse, and not just on this board.

Actually, there are a lot of scientists who are believers in God. The idiots, fools, bigots and so on are the ones who reject science because they believe God made everything and there is no need to draw any other conclusions and sciences that prove the age of the earth are anti-religious.

These types of extremisms are dangerous and deserving of the labels given above. I believe in God and I believe in science. They are both one and the same.

Just remember that the Bible was written by men and not God. Who was around to write that shit down before Adam was allegedly created from dust?

 

[glockmail]

Seems that's an obsession of yours.

Come on, Jill. You know I'm a hips and ass guy. The dingleberries just ruin it for me.

 

[AllieBaba]

The Bible is the holy word of God, written by men but guided and blessed by God. It is imbued with the Holy Spirit. What has come down to us comes down to us by the will of God and as such is holy.

That which is not holy didn't make it in..and the bible actually refers to materials written by this or that person which are not in the bible now...which means that writing was not guided by God.

I'm sure you view that as extremism, but it's just belief. Like some believe in scientific theories.

 

[maineman]

The Bible is the holy word of God, written by men but guided and blessed by God. It is imbued with the Holy Spirit. What has come down to us comes down to us by the will of God and as such is holy.

That which is not holy didn't make it in..and the bible actually refers to materials written by this or that person which are not in the bible now...which means that writing was not guided by God.

I'm sure you view that as extremism, but it's just belief. Like some believe in scientific theories.

So every word of the Bible is totally true and an accurate representation of events?

 

[mattskramer]

Actually, there are a lot of scientists who are believers in God. The idiots, fools, bigots and so on are the ones who reject science because they believe God made everything and there is no need to draw any other conclusions and sciences that prove the age of the earth are anti-religious.

These types of extremisms are dangerous and deserving of the labels given above. I believe in God and I believe in science. They are both one and the same.

Just remember that the Bible was written by men and not God. Who was around to write that shit down before Adam was allegedly created from dust?

The first step is to be a theist. The next is to be a Christian. Even if I were to believe in “intelligent design”, it does not follow that the Bible is true.

 

[mattskramer]

Believers in God are labeled as idiots and fools, as bigoted and worse, and not just on this board.

Nice little stray man. Some people may call theists names. Some people may call atheists names. If I recall a few posts, you even stoop to name-calling.

 

[mattskramer]

So every word of the Bible is totally true and an accurate representation of events?

I challenged him on inconsistent and absurd Bible passages before. He just does not play or care to debate the finer points of the Bible. It is as if he sticks to the cliché “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”