"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.

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...

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.

i second that......science sure has evolved very much but we cant explain for certain how the earth was made but all we know is that there somthing very powerfull going on in space.....

Ridiculous. "What if?"

Your opinion that something creates the big bang is totally irrelevant to the fact that Big bang is the best theory out there that explains the origin of the universe SO FAR. And scientists aren't shy about admitting that there IS something that triggers it. Science is fallible, but it's honest. And it's STILL LOOKING FOR THE ORIGIN. Not sitting on its ass like all the religious authority in the world.

Believing that something creates the big bang only will result in another questions "what creates it?"

If your answer is GOD, then you'll need to support your answer with arguments. Otherwise, it's just faith, and you can keep your faith to yourself.

Yes, science and research generates money to the scientists. Yes, science ALWAYS THINKS OUTSIDE THE SQUARE YOU LIVE IN. So my suggestion is to look around more outside your religious studies ( if you have any ) and outside your community ( if you've never been out ).... and only then you can suggest people to think outside the box

Here's an example of something you probably never think about: this website you're writing at is one manifestation of that "findings" you're talking about.

oh... and also the internet, and your electricity, your computer, etc

the atmosphere created the big bang theory << wow.

Ummkay, you say this but how true is it really?? Do you really want to go your whole life believing in someone that you don't for sure know is even there. How could you really think that one man is the one that made everything.... and if so who made him?? i think that there is something way bigger going on.

The scientific community doesn't make money based on how much research they perform. They don't even get paid on a per-discovery basis (generally speaking, at least).

Money is earned in more or less four ways.

First, and the least, is funding. Individuals, businesses, government, and other entities provide scientists with money to cover material and living costs for the scientists to do perform research that is relevant to the entity providing the funding. This isn't paying someone for results, but rather, it's more like giving them a budget to find results.

Second, most potentially lucrative, but rare in the current climate, is when a scientist or group of scientists makes a discovery that is somehow marketable. This only really comes into play when they are researching independently or with donations, however. When research is funded by a business (or something to that effect) it is generally stipulated that rights to any discoveries belong to those providing the funding.

Third, and generally more common in the current climate, is when a scientist with sufficient background publishes a book that is able to sell, but we're getting into a different skillset altogether here.

The most common case is being on someones payroll directly, most frequently as a professor at a university, but also quite often working on teams for businesses or government.

In none of these cases, though, does the scientist get paid for "more research." In all cases, they are paid for what they deliver or what they are expected to deliver. In some cases, scientists have been known to try and squeeze more funding for a project and intentionally drag it out, but that's hardly the norm.

The same line of thinking you use is more accurate if turned back towards god as well; religions as institutions make a LOT of money, and large ones, such as the Catholic Church, certainly have a financial incentive to convince as many people that 1) god exists and 2) exists in a manner consistent with their own teachings.

How can anyone believe in the big bang. How could the big bang have created people, animals, flowers and everything else beautiful (or not) in the world. It would have needed a supreme being.....God

I agree with what you're saying, but if we know nothing about the initial force, why call it god? That word is just so loaded.

We can use philosophy to discuss things outside the bounds of science. Philosophy is different from religion in that it is based on reason rather than faith.

That's right god created the big bang so that the big bang can create the universe. Just LIKE GOD CREATED OUR ANCESTORS AND THEY CREATED US BUT god created us.

Are you trying to make christians sound stupid?

so you would rather listen to a book written thousands of years ago than modern facts? not to sound mean or crash on your faith but really, think about it.

Have you considered the possibility of an infinite universe? If you've rejected such an idea, please explain to me why it's acceptable for god to be infinite but not the universe.

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.

You are incorrect, there is lots of scientific evidence that supports the big back theory, which is why scientific consensus throughout the world has made it the accepted theory of how the universe began. To actually get into detail and explain the evidence in support of the theory would just confuse most people, and often does, which leads to the commonly held belief by laypeople that it's an unfounded theory without any actual proof to support it. Additionally, the argument that the consensus of the scientific community is some kind of conspiracy in academia is similar to saying that the U.S. government planned the 9/11 attacks and are covering it all up..... it's just what it sounds like, a crazy conspiracy theory. You can't go blaming the media either, they have no real interest in supporting the theory. You're just reacting to the fact that the dominant theory threatens your world view. I could easily take your statement and replace the words "BB Theory" with "existence of God" and replace the word "science" with religion (and vice versa). You might think that such an event as the big bang is totally irrational, but there IS scientific data and logically derived conclusions that have convinced many very educated, very smart people that it is THE most plausible theory... however, there is no empirical evidence that God exists. As is clear from your statement, the argument for His existence is that "every other theory is impossible/unprovable so it MUST be his work." I could say the same about aliens from another dimension or magic, surely you wouldn't admit that they also could have created the universe or life on this planet? You are the one who is too stubborn to accept to accept such a simple explanation that the universe appeared out of no where, and that a tremendous amount of energy came out of what seemingly was nothing at all (similar to how splitting a single atom produces the greatest amount of energy humans have so far been able to produce). By no means does this mean you are wrong to have faith... but that's what religion and belief in God is, faith, and you shouldn't go asking for or offering proof for God's existence, faith is the only thing that matters in that regard. Science, however, is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method, and you obviously are throwing out blanket statements about a theory you don't fully understand. If you did, you would know that there is plenty of proof to support it, and it would not be the dominant theory and have the support of the world scientific community if there was none.

You do realize the earth is 4.6 BILLION years old right? Things can evolve over long periods of time.

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.

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!

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.

"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/evidence_for_the_big_bang_theory_in_10_minutes.php

"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:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The%20Big%20Bang%20Theory.htm

"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?

The difference is that the big bang theory is grounded in reason whereas God is grounded in faith. Faith is not a strong foundation.

Also, you are misusing the word "theory." The Big Bang is a theory. God is not.

This is logical. One would question, "How is everything so complex yet what is believed to create it is something so very random and not organized?" Only God or something else could have done this. Likewise, explosions only are destruction and how are they supposed to create something so complex when explosions disperse matter? I support this opinion.

I support God, but when you put evolution with God it makes no sense. Why would intelligent supernatural beings(God is three beings who think the same according to the Bible it is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) want there to be mutations to something mutilated when Humans were supposed to be made in His image. If evolution was true, why isn't there anything that's not fully developed into a certain organism such as an fish-lizard or lizard-ape or ape-human? Science and God can coexist but with certain concepts only.

One question is able to trump your entire argument: What made God?

What made the matter in the universe?

Matter is just energy in disguise. And the law of conservation says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the energy may always have existed, in different forms. The truth is that we don't know though.

What made the hydrogen and helium atoms?

Hydrogen condensed from the initial energy, and helium came via nuclear fusion in the first protostars.

What made the big bang?

Probably quantum fluctuations in the inflationary model.

what made the oscillating theory?

Scientists.

Until someone finds the answer to all these 'whats', GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE.

Until someone finds the answer to all these 'whats', ALLAH MADE THE UNIVERSE.

Until someone finds the answer to all these 'whats', ZEUS MADE THE UNIVERSE.

Until someone finds the answer to all these 'whats', KRISHNA MADE THE UNIVERSE.

Until someone finds the answer to all these 'whats', THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER MADE THE UNIVERSE.

Scientists who make money by writing books and conducting research tend to support the big bang theory and many other therories because there well being depends on it.

Please Note however that these scientists only have theories they do not have proof. Every few years someone comes along with a new theory and find ever smaller particles not known previously new planets , stars , and the list goes on. The truth is that scientists knowledge compared to the knowledge needed to make the universe we live in , is but a spec of sand on the beach man will never know all or even half the answers

I support the idea that the world was designed and therefore there must have been a designer (its a good Job that Health and Safety wasnt around at the time as it would have been prevented)

"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.

To Kuklapolitan: your argument towards this debate is very much appreciated. Your argument states nothing but what you absolutely believe. it states the truth. that is what this debate is all about

Well I liked it thief

Where's your evidence?

Yeah, it's better not to ask questions when you believe in God. They don't like that very much.

"man can't create anything from nothing"

True, but that doesn't mean God did it.

The fact is nobody knows how the universe came to be.

Saying that God did it is just giving an easy answer to a hard question.

Aaaaaand, what exactly has that got to do with anything?

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.

I'll have to dig up some old textbooks on this one, but I do not believe that the big bang is attributed to man, which is why the universe has not yet overtaken its intended budget.

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.

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.

'How is it possible for a bang to create itself from nothing?'

We don't know, so let's find out. Assertions without facts and evidence retard our growth.

finish your primary school first. then come back and argue.

try to read something useful, instead of just the bible or quran.

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!

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?

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.

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...

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 ;)

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.