Was the world really created by god or the big bang theory?
God
Side Score: 105
|
 |
Big bang theory
Side Score: 176
|
|
Sure the big bang theory makes a lot of sense, it truly does. but what if there really is something bigger out there. to have such a force to create the big bang theory, there would have had to be something out there to create the big force, surely. my vote is god purely because sometimes, you need to think outside the square you live in right?? the big bang theory is purely scientific evidence. For sure science has gone a long way but they are trying to prove that the atmosphere created the big bang theory because the more they "research" the more money they get out of the findings, correct? 587 days ago | Tagged As: God
"but what if there really is something bigger out there." There could be. And this would have absolutely no impact on whether Big Bang cosmology is correct. "to have such a force to create the big bang theory, there would have had to be something out there to create the big force, surely." And we descend into an infinite regression of inquiry that ultimately leads us nowhere and does not increase our understanding of anything. "my vote is god purely because sometimes, you need to think outside the square you live in right??" Isn't that precisely what we did? For many, many centuries standard knowledge told us that the phenomena within the universe were created or at least guided into existence by god/gods/goddesses/forces/dragons etc... god was and is the "square". Now we have a model of the universe that helps us account for universal constants, experiment and manipulate these phenomena, and increase human knowledge. Big Bang cosmology helped us leave the square "god did it" rhetoric and expanded our understanding of the universe. "For sure science has gone a long way but they are trying to prove that the atmosphere created the big bang theory because the more they "research" the more money they get out of the findings, correct?" This is completely wrong. 586 days ago
I realize what you are saying in that we have left the square of the "god did it" rhetoric because of the theory that we have today, but then there is even bigger square outside of that proving the existence of God. Science will never be able to explain where all of the matter and energy in the universe and the big bang came from. Something cannot come from nothing. That is my reason for believing in creationism. I don't believed it happened as described exactly as it is in the Bible, but I believe in the message that the story was trying to get across: that God created the world, the universe, and humanity, in one way or another. 343 days ago | Tagged As: God
That's a great argument. So, for A to exist, there must exist a B that caused A to exist. So if the big bang is A, then God must be B, and therefore God exists! That makes perfect sense! Wait a second. For A to exist, there must exist a B that caused A to exist. So if the God is A, then meta-God must be B, and therefore meta-God exists! That makes perfect sense! Wait a second. For A to exist, there must exist a B that caused A to exist. So if the meta-God is A, then meta-meta-God must be B, and therefore meta-meta-God exists! That makes perfect sense! Wait a second... 343 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
The thing is it's impossible for us to know anything about the force that created the universe. It could have been God, it could have been an accidental "explosion", it could have been anything. Because it's impossible for us to understand the force that created the universe, it makes no sense to say God was that force. 587 days ago
There is no way to know and it depends on how you interpret god. Even then though, you have to wonder where god came from, and if there is a higher nature than it. If so, then the world came from there... but then again you have to wonder where that came from. I don't like to think about it. No matter which you believe, in god or not, there is no way to humanly explain what reality is beyond your own present feelings. 587 days ago | Tagged As: We can never know for sure
This one's interesting. First of all I accept the big-bang as the best theory on how the universe was created. However we are now faced with the question of wether it was God who created the universe through the big-bang or did the big-bang occur because of other reasons? If God did create our universe through the big-bang then I see no reason for squabbling between scientists and religious people. However if the bigban occured by other means that leads us to an array of questions (as science is supposed to do). What caused that small point that had everything contained in it expand? (extradiensional forces?, a giant spaggeti monster? etc..) And if it was extradimensional forces what caused that? and what caused the previous event. In the end science does not answer all questions and a true scientist does not try to answer al questions. Science does not revoke religion nor religion science; they co-exist, that which we can explain is science, the rest mystical and will be viewed as such. I believe There is no wrong nor falsehood in believing in God (or what you may believe in). Science and mathematics explain how the universe works and was created, they are the building tools of the Great Architect. 579 days ago | Tagged As: Science and Religion
There is no absolute scientific proof to back up the BB Theory and there NEVER will be. Media slants things the way they like it just to remove the religious aspect. They just are too stubborn to have such a simple explanation. It like they NEED science just to prove things that cant be proved. NO ONE honestly knows, so if know one knows, how can you even attempt to prove by science? Its the work of God. 384 days ago | Tagged As: God
How can you say "There is no absolute proof..." then say "Its the work of God" in the same paragraph. The reason why there is no "absolute proof" is because regardless of the answer science gives you, you will simply ask another question until science can't answer it. 26 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
BOTH!!!! I have always believed in the big bang theory- it makes sense. But I also realized a long time ago that the energy and the molecules involved had to come from somewhere. I believe God made the big bang happen and then the rest of the universe, life, and human history followed suit. Edit: I just realized I already posted a response to this debate over 130 days ago.... whoops. 248 days ago | Tagged As: Both
I believe, quite strongly, that God exists. Therefore I must conclude that He created the universe. However, I also consider myself a student of science and must accept the evidence for an event that has caused the universe to expand infinitely from a single point. These two beliefs are not in any way in opposition to one another if one reaches the logical conclusion that the Old Testament is a collection of myths, each of which contains a kernel of truth but have been changed over possibly thousands of years by oral retelling. By doing so, we can then hypothesize (since the existence of God cannot be proven) that God was the driving force behind the Big Bang and is therefore responsible for the creation of the universe. 464 days ago | Tagged As: God
Firstly, why not believe that god created the big bang, No one gives into the bullshit of seven days, Secondly, this is far fetched, but if you have seen harry potter 3/prisoner of Azkaban or back to the future, you might understand, God created the big bang, which created himself, and he went back in time and created the big bang thus creating himself to create another self in a countinuous round of time, i'm babbling, BYE 449 days ago | Tagged As: God
alot of the scientist dont have concrete info.If you read their books and tv programs it is always Maybe this happened or maybe that.and everytime someone else come change there theory and prove them wrong then they go with someone elses so call discovery.i think they are confuse.The Quraan explain stuff that scientist only came to figure out now.Scientist should studdy the Quraan then they will get all the answers they looking for. 312 days ago | Tagged As: God
if the big bang thing happened then who created the thing that caused the big bang.someone must have created the thing where it started.it could not have just one day appeared there and wallaa there it happened.everything starts somewhere.it had to be created.so somewhere along the line scientist will end up where our beliefs come in. 312 days ago | Tagged As: God
the big bang theory is purely scientific evidence. For sure science has gone a long way but they are trying to prove that the atmosphere created the big bang theory because the more they "research" the more money they get out of the findings, correct? Wouldn't you like to think that you were created for a reason. I find that majority of people would like to think so. To me the big bang theory is the equivalent of giving a monkey a bag with a bunch of pieces parts and telling him to shake it, the finished product a watch!!! No thats not going to happen!!! Sorry if you thought it would, hey you can keep on trying but your monkey will probably get mad and start flinging poop at you. Anyway, God created everything! It was created by Him and for His pleasure. If you choose not to believe this thats cool, but HELL is also a very real place! Think about it, heaven or hell? Which would you rather be in for eternity? 174 days ago | Tagged As: God
Well, really the Big Bang doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the universe. It's just a simple fact that the universe is expanding and therefore must be expanding away from a central point. God could have caused the Big Bang, ten dimensional space rocks could've caused it, there could be an infinite universe, ultimate energy, whatever. The key point is that 1) The Big Bang is a fact and 2) It's impossible to say what caused it. 588 days ago
Hello I am new to createdebate. Nice to meet you all. I will argue against the big bang theory if I may. Well sort of. Sure the universe could have started as a tiny dense ball that exploded. I don't have a problem with that. But what of the space around the tiny dense ball? After all, the tiny dense ball is the origin of time and space. How can you have time and space surrounding the tiny dense ball if the origin for time and space is within the tiny dense ball? Where can you find any room to explode? Something has to pre-exist time and space to create it. Something has to be timeless and spaceless. I simply ask you to think about time and space creation without getting caught in an infinite logical loop. 586 days ago | Tagged As: God
"But what of the space around the tiny dense ball?" The universe is space and time. All that is the universe was contained within the singularity (according to the theory). So there was no space surrounding the ball, because the ball WAS space. And remember that the big bang theory was postulated according to the evidence observed, thus all it explains is that the universe was at one time compressed in this manner - it does not explain directly what was "outside" the singularity. Here's a short video detailing the rudiments of the big bang theory for quick reference: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/07/ "How can you have time and space surrounding the tiny dense ball if the origin for time and space is within the tiny dense ball?" No one ever claimed you could. "Where can you find any room to explode?" Contrary to its name, the big bang theory does not assume there was an explosion, merely an expansion of the universe. We don't know what is beyond the universe, but the universe is finite, therefore whatever void surrounded the universe was the "room" for it to expand in. "Something has to pre-exist time and space to create it." Not necessarily; this is a commonly-held assumption that is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. The greatest mind-twister of this is that singularities defy conventional physics (remember there are singularities today, existing at the center of black holes), therefore any number of possibilities exist as to what caused the singularity to appear (or if it has always existed) and what caused it to expand. So whatever force caused it to expand is beyond our current comprehension - but science is ever evolving. And even if we do discover evidence of an unknown force propelling the expansion, or even the creation, calling it God and ceasing all attempts to discover the natural cause is illogical, because then we'd just be filling in the blanks with an equally unexplainable phenomenon, rather than working to find the true, natural solution. We may never find the answer, but we can at least be intellectually honest with ourselves in saying, "I don't know, let's find out." Also, the big bang theory and god are not mutually exclusive; you can believe the big bang theory and also believe that a god created the singularity - deism is a logical enough stance to have. However, you would have to concede that you do not know the mechanism this "god" used to create the singularity, putting yourself in the same position as those who believe the big bang theory but don't know what made the singularity. It just seems more concise to not bring metaphysics into the equation. "I simply ask you to think about time and space creation without getting caught in an infinite logical loop." It's impossible to avoid the infinite when speaking about the origins of existence. Even with the idea of god creating the universe, you can't avoid implying eternity in some aspect or another. Further reading on the subject:
Supporting Evidence:
Big Bang Theory Rudiments/Evidence
(www.big-bang-theory.com)
586 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
"How can you have time and space surrounding the tiny dense ball if the origin for time and space is within the tiny dense ball?" That's an interesting point. I never really considered it. However, this argument suffers from the same problem as all the other arguments on this side of the debate, that is: It is impossible for us to know anything about the stuff outside and beyond our universe. Maybe time and space are simply properties of our own universe and don't apply outside it's bounds. Time, space, logic, all of these concepts apply within our universe, but why should they apply outside of it? Further, since we can understand absolutely nothing about this possible stuff outside of our universe, why call it God? 585 days ago | Tagged As: Trying to explain the unexplainable
How is it possible for a bang to create itself from nothing? Something or someone has to create a bang. There are so many amazing things in this world that are next to impossible to explain, too intricate to be haphazardly put together. A creative genius had to be behind the scenes orchestrating our universe. This being is our God. He created the four chambered heart that beats non-stop in the average person billions of beats during a lifetime. He created animals that have certain adaptations in order to survive in their natural habitat. And the gloriously beautiful things, like a gorgeous sunset with several different hues of orange, yellow and pink, so inspiring that it takes your breath away. I think that only a loving, omnipotent God could create the world we live in with all its complexities and intricacies. 572 days ago | Tagged As: Trying to explain the unexplainable
In the main part of your argument, you are basically reciting the argument from design. The argument from poor design is a strong counter to this: 1. A loving, omnipotent God would create organisms that have optimal design. 2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. 3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not loving and omnipotent. One example of poor design: In human females, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. If an infant's head is too big they will not fit and before c-sections death for the mother was the usual result. There are many, many other examples of poor design. Coming back to the beginning of your argument: "How is it possible for a bang to create itself from nothing? Something or someone has to create a bang." It's true that something can't come from nothing, so for the universe to begin there must have been some force behind it. However, this initial force is completely beyond our understanding. There's no reason to assume it was intelligent. Also, the universe did not necessarily begin, it may have simply always existed, perhaps going through an infinite bang / crunch cycle. 571 days ago
In my opinion, God created the big bang, because to even have a "big bang" there has to be something greater out there. It just seems to make more sense to me to have a God that created this rather than just believing that something turned up from nothing. 379 days ago | Tagged As: God
If "man" can't create anything from nothing, what empirical evidence indicates that anyone/thing can? Barring any such evidence, I'd say that no ONE can create anything from nothing. Therefore if there IS a god, s/he must have come from SOMETHING. And so must the universe. 590 days ago | Tagged As: Something from nothing
Firstly, it's not really an argument. The Big Bang theory is pretty much the definitive explanation for the beginning of the universe. What caused the explosion is yet unknown, but to simply say "it was god" without any evidence to back that up is foolish. Now then, let's get onto the point about the universe being so complex, impossible, and other such unsubstantiated claims. I'm sorry that I have to keep bringing this up, but obviously everyone and their mother missed the science class that explained the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Order (the perceived complexity of the universe you speak of) is most likely to occur in a closed system which is far from equilibrium. When a closed system is in the equilibrium state, its entropy has reached a maximum value. The entropy of the closed system cannot increase further. Hence, there is no room to compensate for the entropy decrease of a local system within the closed system unless it is accompanied by an entropy increase in a neighboring local system. By contrast, if a closed system is far from equilibrium, its entropy will increase dramatically, which can compensate for a substantial entropy decrease of a local system. Thus, ordered structures are more likely to be created from a non-equilibrium state than an equilibrium state. The Big Bang theory backs up this view of the world. The Big Bang creates an initial universe which contains an enormously high energy density and is extremely far from equilibrium. In order to reach an equilibrium state, the universe expanded rapidly, resulting in dramatic increase in entropy. This compensate perfectly for the entropy decrease due to the formation of ordered structures such as galaxies, stars, planets, life on Earth, etc. Or, you know, it could just be god? And I won't even begin to get into your final point about the bible's reliability. 588 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
Atheists don't believe the universe was created by "mere coincidence", we just don't think that God did it. Nobody knows how the universe was created. And the complexity of the universe emerges from relatively simple, compounded elemental reactions.[1] Intelligent design just doesn't hold water. "substantiated by the Bible which has for long been reliable standing the tests of time, man and science" This part is just crap. The Bible has fared quite poorly against science. Or do you believe in the Garden of Eden? [1] thanks Mahollinder ;) 589 days ago
There are some pretty big logical flaws here. "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence." This is an assumption. We know that there was a singularity, and a large explosion occurred which caused the rapid expansion of the universe out of this singularity. The singularity, however, could have existed forever. It could even have been a previous universe going through it's big bang/big crunch. Your argument unfortunately breaks down at this point, as your premises are not shown to be true. "it must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter" Assumption. We don't know what existed before the universe, or indeed if there even was a before. Remember that time is possibly only a property of this universe, so anything outside of the bounds of this universe is purely assumption. "it must be timeless because it existed in the absence of time." Assumption. As I stated above, we can't make any assumptions of time outside of the bounds of the universe. "it must be personal because it intended to create the universe." Ouch! Not only is this a huge assumption, but this one isn't even based on any current knowledge. Quite sneaky as you attempted to throw this line in between three other possibly valid (though, remember, they are all just assumptions) statements. Please show me how you can deduce that there was intention to create the universe. Just because it is here doesn't mean that there was any intention for it to be here. Can you back this statement up? "it must be enormously powerful because it had the power to create the entire universe" Assumption, though this one is highly likely. Within the bounds of the universe, I'd have to agree with you. The first law of thermodynamics also agrees with you. But remember, we're talking possibly about pre-universe here. Or, possibly, about a universe that has always existed. Maybe the power that is used to create the new universe is simply the power emitted by the big crunch of a previous universe? "Some have suggested that the God hypothesis is false because God must have been caused, but this is simply not true." I can assure you that it is. What you've done here is assumed that the universe could never have always existed and that god could have. These are simply assumptions. If you're willing to accept that god has always existed, why are you not willing to accept that the universe has always existed? The fact that the state of our current universe came from an explosion within a singularity is not important. We have no current understanding, evidence, etc, of anything that occurred beforehand; therefore the universe always existing is just as likely as god always existing. If you aren't willing to accept an ever-existing universe, then I am afraid that I am unable to accept an ever-existing god. "Those who deny that God created the universe are left to explain how something came from absolutely nothing." If you can show me that the universe absolutely hasn't always existed, perhaps; but you can't. Regardless, the jump from "something had to exist previously" to "well, it had to be an intelligent personal god then" is too far a jump. It's all just assumptions, which you're trying to back up with logic. The problem is that your logic just doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It's amazing what people will accept with god ("oh, god, yeah, he's always existed"), but will refuse to accept with the universe. 588 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
Those aren't logical flaws or assumptions my friend. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence" It is absurd to deny that something that begins to exist can do so without a cause. Please provide some examples of things that have begun to exist without cause. (Obviously you can't say the universe because that is exactly what is up for debate here.) Maybe you have a horse that began to exist without cause (no parents, no magician, no illusionists...it just appeared in your living room while you were trying to watch TV.) Maybe a car? Your only response to my premiss is to say "It could have existed forever", or "It couldhave been a previous universe." You posit fanciful imaginary scenarios to try and get around the fact that my premiss is plainly true. "It must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter." How is this an assumption? We cannot talk about 'before the universe' because time and matter came into existence at the same moment. If the cause of the universe existed without the universe, as it must have because the universe could not cause itself, then the cause of the universe existed in the absolute absence of matter. Something that exists in the absence of matter is necessarily immaterial. Same goes for the 'timelessness' of the cause. It must be personal... We know this because an impersonal set of mechanical causes could not exist without their resulting effect. If this were the case, then the universe would have always existed, which is mathematically impossible as it would constitute an infinite regress of cause and effect. Enormously powerful...you seem to agree, although you don't want to. Why am I comfortable with an eternal God but not an eternal universe? As I mentioned previously, the physical universe, if it existed eternally, would constitute an eternal regress of cause and effect. This is mathematically impossible as it lead to several contradictory conclusions, all of which must be true, but some of which are mutually exclusive. An eternal, immaterial, timeless being is certainly logically plausible as established by my arguments previously. The plain science says that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. This fact is just not up for debate among serious scientists. Your oscillating universe idea was debunked long ago, you should drop that one from your list of rebuttals. Sorry xaeon, but your comments do not demonstrate that my premisses are flawed. You seem to think that we can only know things that we can detect empirically. This is far from the truth. There are many things that we know that are impossible to detect empirically, things like the laws of logic ('A' cannot be 'Not A'). The things that we know about what could have existed without the universe are well established by the laws of logic. 532 days ago | Tagged As: God
While I like your argument much more than the other flaming pieces of ignorance on this side of the debate, I still see some serious flaws. You ask how the universe could have begun without God. One possible explanation is that the universe has simply always existed. Your assumption that "The universe began" is not necessarily true. Second, the laws of physics do not necessarily apply outside of our universe. Therefore it's entirely possible that something can indeed come from "nothing." Here "nothing" could mean "void" or "stuff beyond our universe about which it's impossible to know anything." So your assumption that "Everything... must have a cause" is also not necessarily true. With these flawed assumptions, the rest of your argument has no foundation. "-[the cause of the Big Bang] must be personal because it intended to create the universe." This conclusion is definitely flawed. The cause of the Big Bang could very well have been accidental. 589 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
I agree with Xaeon. The 'uncaused causer' theory has always amused me. "Oh, nothing can exist without a cause.. Except god!" -it must be personal because it intended to create the universe. You have pulled that from nowhere! Without that point you cannot deduce god, so you've just slipped it in. The universe creation doesn't have to be personal, that's what the debate is trying to answer, so you can't use that point to prove itself. If it's personal there must be a god. You can't debate that the universe was created by god because it was created by god! 586 days ago
"I cannot believe the Big Bang theory created all we have." Not directly, no. The Big Bang was just the initial event that set up the circumstances under which further complexity could develop. Why is that so hard to believe? If I may speculate, I believe that your (and other religious people's) difficulty in accepting this idea stems from the religious indoctrination beaten into your head since childhood. You have an emotional attachment to Christianity that prevents you from evaluating things clearly. "In the end it doesn't really matter who or what created any of it." I agree with you to an extent there. But problems come up when Christians (and other religious people) do stuff like blocking stem cell research or preventing evolution from being taught in schools. If people would accept that belief in God is irrational, these problems would go away. 588 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
Hello jessald! These "theories" have been argued throughout the decades and in the end, no one has absolute proof for any of it. It's total conjecture on all ends. I believe in God. You believe in science. Both of us are entitled to our beliefs, however, when it comes down to someone telling me I've been brainwashed by religious indoctrination or that I cannot evaluate things clearly because of an emotional attachment to Christianity, I'm afraid I must differ and take grave exception to the remark. I happen to be a Christian who believes in stem cell research and have no problem teaching the sciences or the theory of evolution in schools. I also believe in the 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule and the teachings of Jesus Christ, no matter who he was or was not. While I do not believe my faith in God is irrational in any way I am a person who is open to all ideologies and ideas whether or not they are based in religion or science. I, for one, didn't buy the entire ticket book simply because I was born into a Christian home. 588 days ago
Firstly, you're assuming. And we know what the old saying says about assuming things, right? Secondly, the Big Bang did have a force regulating it; the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. But I'm sure you already knew that, right? Hurray for science! 589 days ago
You don't need an intelligent designer to explain the big bang. Why do you think one is necessary? Any external force could have resulted in the creation of our universe -- and that force was not necessarily intelligent. For example, the big bang could've been caused by two cosmic chucks of ten dimensional space crashing together. The fact is, questions about what came before the big bang are impossible to answer. The laws that govern our own universe probably don't even apply. Saying that God did it without presenting any evidence is just foolish. 589 days ago
how exactly does the big bang theory need god in order to work? What needs to be regulated? sorry for my ignorance but i am very curious.
from what i remember learning the universe was in a vary dense form supposedly before the big bang, and thus possibly a chemical reaction could be initiated by an increase of temperature that could certainly produce the big bang. if we must ask what came before the big bang, like what was the beginning, than shouldn't we also ask what came before god? i mean if you can't let it go that things could have just existed in a simple form and with great lengths of time become something else, than why can you accept that god just existed without something before god creating god? 590 days ago
Wow, you're right Pyg. I never thought of it that way. Using science to try and figure stuff out - leading to the Big Bang theory - that's preschool shit. Not like the big magic daddy in the sky theory at all. You must be some kind of intellectual, with your well founded opinions and what not. I feel so inadequate replying to one such as yourself... 590 days ago | Tagged As: God
|
If you're talking about the earth, then neither. The big bang theory deals with the beginning of the universe, not specifically the formation of planets. The earth was formed by gravitational forces in a nebulous cloud of dust and gas that formed a star then coalesced into a number of planets around the sun. We can deduce the formation of the earth to the mechanics of natural forces, therefore god doesn't enter into the equation (if you keep to Occam's razor.) Now, the question of the universe's beginning is a much more interesting one for this topic. The big bang theory is gaining more and more evidence to support it, but even it does not explain where the singularity originated from, only that the universe began as the singularity, and it expanded. Science is ever evolving, and we are gaining more knowledge about the workings of the universe every day. We may yet one day discover the origins of the singularity, or we may become extinct before we find out the truth. Either way, I don't see much of a reason to assume a "god" was involved, because that assumption is made to fill in a gap of knowledge, rather than finding hard evidence and then deducing the explanation from that (like science does). The problem with the god explanation is that, in most contexts, god is something beyond physical existence, beyond comprehension, and beyond explanation. It cannot be comprehended where it exists, how it exists, what form it takes, etc. Therefore it's assumed that this being that was pulled from someone's nether regions created the universe because, well, I said so. That's not a very plausible explanation. We've witnessed the "god done did it" assumption be rendered moot time and time again when science discovers the way something works that was previously thought to be the work of a god. Do I know that there was not a god involved? Of course not; but saying "I don't know; let's find out" is a much more logical step than saying "I assume it's god, so let's move on." 590 days ago | Tagged As: Planetary formation
Good call. Saying the Earth was created due to gravity, from the cloud of dust at the begining of our Universe is kind of nit-picking since the dust got there due the Big Bang, but good info. On your comments on god: There's a branch of the Catholic faith called Jesuits, and one of those guys, Saint Anselm, actually came up with a pretty complex theory about god. It's called the Ontological Theory. The premise being - and it's more complex than this, but basically: - Man cannot creat something from nothing. That is, every idea you have, no matter how creative you think it is, comes directly from things you've observed somehow. Like try to think of an animal that doesn't exist, five tails, scales, fly's without wings, whatever. No matter how wild it gets every piece comes from something you've observed. There's nothing "created." - Man has thought of the idea of "something than which nothing greater can exist." It's important to the proof that it doesn't say "all powerful." Just that nothing more powerful may exist. And we call this god. - Since man has no experience of something than which nothing greater can exist, than we must have knowledge of an actual god, and he must exist. Otherwise we never would have thought of him. We give "him" a name, and make him look like us in our heads because we have no other knowledge, but the idea that we can think of the concept - he argues - means he must be. I would argue this proves he doesn't exist, because actually we can't imagine "something than which nothing greater exist." We can only say it. Go ahead, try imagining it, bet you can then imagine something else that can kick "something than which nothing greater can exist's" ass. Proving you never imagined it at all. All that is just to say that not every theory of god is just filler. Some people do make an actual effort. Just not these crazy evangalists that keep popping up, spewing their stupidity on here. 590 days ago | Tagged As: Jesuit
Careful with the Jesuits; they're a wily bunch, too clever by half, and not at all adverse to obscurantism. If I were the pope (and, incidentally, I am not), I would never have allowed them to operate under the Vatican banner. Or, it may be more accurate to say that the popes were never allowed to stop them from operating as such. 590 days ago | Tagged As: Jesuit
good one. but, many theories and discoveries were made in the search for "God". maybe there are people out there who decide on God (without trying to find out more) because they're not scientists or researchers. there are plenty of those types on both spectrums. they take a thoery and believe it without further research. can you blame them? some people believe in the big bang theory and don't know shit about it. is that wrong? not really, that's just what they decided is right. 588 days ago
Look, it's simple. The universe is expanding -- like a balloon. This is a fact. It's called Hubble's Law. Now if the universe is expanding, what does that imply? It implies the universe must have started as a single point. So you see, the big bang is obviously true. The only question is, "Was the big bang caused by God?" And that question is impossible to answer. But seeing how God is just one of an infinite number of possible explanations, I'd say God most probably was not responsible. 589 days ago
Well put. It's also worth noting that the universe probably wasn't created by a theory: neither the big bang theory or the "god theory". It was probably either a big bang or god. Or the more recently proposed big bounce theory could also be a candidate. 492 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Supporting Evidence:
Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
(www.physorg.com)
587 days ago | Tagged As: second law of thermodynamics
The internet is a virtually unlimited repository of information. And yet very few people here actually bothered to look up Big Bang on Wikipedia. (Also look up the scientific definition of "theory" while you're at it.) Anyway, the Big Bang is a collection of enormous observational /fact/ combined with mathematical /theory/ that creates a history of the universe from nearly the beginning of cosmological time. So saying you don't believe in it is saying that you don't believe there's a tree behind you - if you turn around you'll see it. Before the Big Bang, it is true that physics changes a lot, but it still follows laws. It is philosophically debatable (look up "Anthropic Argument") whether we can have empirical evidence to support mathematical theories of how the Big Bang occurred, but nonetheless there are models that create the Big Bang using proven physics without any preconditions of existence (so tried-and-true physics does show how something can come from nothing - look up "Chaotic Inflation" and "Quantum Fluctuation"). The universe doesn't behave like billiard balls - quantum mechanics, relativity, and chaos were the three revolutions of the 20th century that show that your intuition of how the world works is completely wrong, and the truth is far more elegant - and it's all /fact/.
Supporting Evidence:
Wikipedia's Big Bang
(en.wikipedia.org)
464 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
Big bang theory all round!! if you think about this really hard, what evidence does anyone have that god exists? what evidence is their that the bible was correct?? watch the da vinci code and it releases some insite into some major secrets that the catholics do not want the world to know about. 590 days ago | Tagged As: Seriously big bang theory
More the actual event than the theory, but yeah, the Big Bang. The science is pretty solid. Everything fits to around 1/100 of a second before the explosion, it gets a bit scetchy before that though, so who knows. Maybe I'm the asshole and it's God's fault and I'm going to hell. Oh well fuck it, I'm sticking to my guns. Hear that God! 9 minute explanation that I kinda like
590 days ago | Tagged As: Big Bang
The Big Bang Theory is logical, and, it seems to me, scientifically correct. To assume that the entire universe was created by a single being, immortal or otherwise, I think is absolutely absurd, not to mention naive. Think about it: The universe created by one guy, everything falls into place because of him. Or, the universe was created by one massive explosion of celestial matter, and everything needed to evolve before things really began to click. What makes more sense, what is more logical? Science, logic and fact are the guiding principles of my life. I do have faith in supernatural powers, and immortals that have the ability to control the happenings on Earth, but I'm sorry, the thought of the entire universe, which will expand forever and ever, created by one single person? I don't think so. 413 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
Sure...Everyone is bewildered as to whether or not the Earth was created by the Big Bang Theory, but how can we be so sure being that nobody existed during that time to personally witness this event taking place? Was the Earth really created according this theory? or did it exist long before mankind even made its first steps? How can we be so sure? 388 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
we descend into an infinite regression of inquiry that ultimately leads us nowhere and does not increase our understanding of anything. "my vote is god purely because sometimes, you need to think outside the square you live in right?" Isn't that precisely what we did?
Supporting Evidence:
testking 70-291
(www.real-testking.com)
131 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
I see quite simple. We can document, observe, and record the universe and most of its processes. From there, we can go on to calculate and at very minimum reproduce on paper these processes, including most of which happened at the Big Bang. There is no residual evidence of God in the universe. The most documentation of any God is in a few thousand year old books that were written by men. While there may be holes in cosmology, just like the evolution theory, it is the best and most recorded process we have. Spirituality has no such documentation or processes. Scientific documentation trumps theological rhetoric in this manner. 70 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
OK. So. I think that the "theory" that god created the universe/world only "stands" for christan/jewish people. There is actually some evidence that the "big bang" created the world. Show me some proof that "god" created the world/universe. I'm christian but this "theory" that people are creating about he creating the world on 7 days or whatever is just total rubbish,bullshit, crap.. I could go on and on but I have no intensions of wasting my and your time. 41 days ago | Tagged As: Big bang theory
|
