God vs. Science

[David88vert]

I've never heard anyone say they can "prove" the Big Bang. It is usually refered to as the best theory we have but never scientific fact. You can easily point to lots of evidence such as redshift, proportion of elements, etc but they are not definitive. Since I do not feel it can be proven 100% at this time, i would rather discuss the items you feel are inconsistent with the theory.

That is a well-put and completely correct answer. Let's start with some basic inconsistencies/errors.

Law of Conservation of Mass:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mass.html

Law of Conservation of Energy:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f.html

Law of Increased Entropy:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/entropy.html

Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/angular_momentum.html

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? Next, how did this explosion and expansion cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

How does the Big Bang explain the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons, without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Venus, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards. Do you understand how much energy it would take to spin a planet backwards? anything that hit it hard enough to spin it backwards would take a huge chunk out of it AND knock it out of it's orbital path. Venus has an almost perfect shape and orbit. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons in orbit in both directions.

Additionally, how do you approach the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter. For the Big Bang to be real, all matter should be fairly evenly distributed.

[man]

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang? Next, how did this explosion and expansion cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in history caused only disorder and chaos?

How does the Big Bang explain the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons, without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum? Venus, Pluto, and Uranus spin backwards. Do you understand how much energy it would take to spin a planet backwards? anything that hit it hard enough to spin it backwards would take a huge chunk out of it AND knock it out of it's orbital path. Venus has an almost perfect shape and orbit. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have moons in orbit in both directions.

Additionally, how do you approach the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter. For the Big Bang to be real, all matter should be fairly evenly distributed.

The problem here is we don't know the limits of the universe, if there are any. The hardest thing for the human mind to comprehend is something that is infinite.

However if there is a limit, we can assume that, due to the posted laws, the universe is a sphere. We know that the universe is constantly expanding, and according to Steven Hawking that all major systems are moving away from each other. This can only mean that the universe is in fact a sphere. The fact that this sphere is growing means not only was there some force that pushed everything away, but that there is a center.

A center means a few things:
1. Everything started in one place
2. Everything will return to that place.

"uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter"
This all depends on perspective. A huge void may actually be tiny depending on how large the universe actually is. For instance, if you were to shrink the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than the actual thing, even though we have "huge" landforms such as mountains.

Bah, I have to leave, I'll continue later.

[David88vert]

The problem here is we don't know the limits of the universe, if there are any. The hardest thing for the human mind to comprehend is something that is infinite.

However if there is a limit, we can assume that, due to the posted laws, the universe is a sphere. We know that the universe is constantly expanding, and according to Steven Hawking that all major systems are moving away from each other. This can only mean that the universe is in fact a sphere. The fact that this sphere is growing means not only was there some force that pushed everything away, but that there is a center.

A center means a few things:
1. Everything started in one place
2. Everything will return to that place.

"uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in huge voids and clumps of matter"
This all depends on perspective. A huge void may actually be tiny depending on how large the universe actually is. For instance, if you were to shrink the earth to the size of a pool ball, it would be smoother than the actual thing, even though we have "huge" landforms such as mountains.

Bah, I have to leave, I'll continue later.

2 problems with that:

Because of the enormous initial rate of expansion, faster-than-lightspeed signaling would have been necessary for forces to produce and retain universal smoothness over billions of years; however, even the transmission of information above lightspeed is a violation of the theory of relativity. How do you explain the instantaeous expansion, and what energy could overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe?

If you follow Einstein's theories, space is curved due to the presence of matter, but is only positively curved. If you believe that space is uncurved or negatively curved, there must be something to overcome the positive curvature resulting from the presence of the matter. Do you accept the idea of uncurved space of a flat universe, or the negatively curved space of an open universe, and acknowledge the existence of negative gravity? Do you have evidence to provide for the rationale for flat or negative curvature in a universe of significant mass - the mathematics must represent some physical phenomena, specifically, Einstein's publishing of cosmic repulsion.

[bu villain]

Basic problem: Where did the space, time, matter, and energy come from that turned into this universe after the Big Bang?

There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

[David88vert]

There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.

If matter always existed, so would space, time, and energy. This has already been disproven by many scientists. Time had a beginning, and so does matter. What created the matter? It's a simple concept - without a foundation, you cannot build a house. Without a foundation, you cannot build on the theory. Anything else is science fiction, not science. Your entire argument above relies on exempting the Big Bang from scientific laws.

On the elastic universe theory, it won't work. The reason it's impossible for the universe to be "elastic" and have multiple Big Bangs due to its enormous entropy. It has a entropy of 1,000,000,000, and that is a mechanical efficiency of 1/100,000,000 of a percent - for the entire universe. As you know, anything below 1% mechanical efficiency will not oscillate - thus, it is highly improbable that it can be "elastic".

Take your time. I'm not going anywhere. I am just glad that someone is willing to think for themselves, and not just agree with me, or disagree blindly. Without people examing an issue from all sides, you cannot increase your knowledge fully.

[The12lber]

If matter always existed, so would space, time, and energy. This has already been disproven by many scientists. Time had a beginning, and so does matter. What created the matter? It's a simple concept - without a foundation, you cannot build a house.

Arguing that because science offers an incomplete explanation for the origin of the universe and therefore it must have been god is a logic based argument. Unfortunately, it is logically unsound as you must then explain where the supernatural force that created the universe came from and you're back to square one. All you can conclude is you don't have an answer.

This is what you're trying to do here, don't try to deny it. It doesn't work.

[David88vert]

Arguing that because science offers an incomplete explanation for the origin of the universe and therefore it must have been god is a logic based argument. Unfortunately, it is logically unsound as you must then explain where the supernatural force that created the universe came from and you're back to square one. All you can conclude is you don't have an answer.

This is what you're trying to do here, don't try to deny it. It doesn't work.

Can you answer where the matter came from? It sounds like you wish to ignore the obvious and choose to build a concept with no basis in foundation. Is this the case?

I have not been mentioning God, only discussing the Big Bang's misconceptions. I have been using science, not religion. You are the one wanting to interject religion into it. Stay on the course, quit trying to take it off on a tangent. If you want to declare that a "higher power" created the matter first, as you foundation, that is up to you - and I can procede in that case to still use science to evaluate the Big Bang after initial expansion. I am simply asking you to establish where the matter that was involved in the Big Bang came from. Or do you deny the existence of the 1st law?

[Maniac1]

I am simply asking you to establish where the matter that was involved in the Big Bang came from. Or do you deny the existence of the 1st law?

Theoretical couldn't the big bang be an ever lasting cycle, repeating over and over again? Since matter is now expanding farther away, it should come to a point where matter starts absorbing each other due to gravity, right? And over trillions and trillions of years start forming into another energy orb gaining energy every second til it's density becomes so dense and gains infinite mass then one day re-explodes. This explosion would be even greater than gamma ray bursts, so could this be how big bangs occur? Would this even be possible, or do any laws prevent this theory from existing?

[The12lber]

Can you answer where the matter came from? It sounds like you wish to ignore the obvious and choose to build a concept with no basis in foundation. Is this the case?

Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.

[David88vert]

Clearly, because it is logically inconsistent and "a concept without foundation" to state that if you propose a supernatural progenitor you have to explain its origin as well.

A better conclusion to come to: our scientific understanding is incomplete. That is all.

There is a huge difference between an infinite god being outside of his creation, and a finite creation that self-generates.

In order to lay down a foundation for creationism, believers only have to accept their belief in an unprovable infinite creator.

In order to lay down a foundation for the Big Bang, believers need to prove that finite reality can be created within the laws of science.

While it may appear that it is unfair to make science prove it's hypothesis, that is exactly what science is supposed to do - observe, test, and draw accurate conclusions.

Since you obviously are ready to concede that the Big Bang hypothesis is already flawed, and violates the 1st law, would you like for us to ignore that, and move on to singularity, smoothness, horizon, and magnetics - the obvious next issues to discuss before we really get in-depth? We are only glancing the surface right now, and I think you have established that you do not wish to pursue creation of matter any further. We will just assume that it magically came to exist for now (for the sake of this discourse). Am I correct in this assumption?

[01CDMLUDER]

[QUOTE=bu villain]There are several theories on this. For example, the elastic universe theory says there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, therefore the matter was always there. That being said, big bang theory starts at the instant after the singularity exploded. It does not attempt to explain how the singularity came to be. Therefore, I will not go into this topic more, we could have a whole other thread on this.

As for the other issues. I think I can find some good answers from my research. I have read about all those topics but I need to refresh myself on the specifics. Be patient please, this is turning into a good discussion.[/QUOTE]

its all theories though. no one can prove for sure that either side is right. scientist have been wrong on alot of things...just look at global warming and what scientist said about it before and now!! i know there's a god and and im not trying to force my religion on anyone. but........

Have you ever seen the wind? no.. but u know its there
First, you can know that the wind is there because you can see it moving things. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can see what the wind is doing.

You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it. You can feel it blowing against your face and you can feel it blowing through your hair. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can feel it.

Finally, you can know the wind is there because you can hear it. I can hear the wind whistling through the trees, down the chimney, and around the windows and doors. I can't see the wind, but I know it is there because I can hear it.

How many of you have ever seen God? The Bible says that no one has seen God. Well if we haven't seen him, how do we know he is there? I think we can know that he is there the same way we know the wind is there.

First, we can see Him moving. The Bible says that the Spirit of God moves men to speak and to do things for him. (2 Peter 1:21) We can't see God, but we can see men doing things that God's Holy Spirit has moved them to do.

We can know that God is there because we can feel His presence. The Bible says, "I will fear no evil for Thou art with me." (Psalm 23:4) The Bible also says that "if we love one another, God lives in us." We can't see God, but we know he is there because we can feel his presence in our life.

Finally, we can know He is there because we can hear him. The Bible says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, and if any man hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him." (Revelation 3:20) We can't see God, but we know he is there because he speaks to our hearts.

maybe god just hasn't reached out to u yet. my grandma died and was brought back to life. she told me that she was in heaven but it wasnt here time yet. i read this book called 90 minutes in heaven where this guy gets hit by a semi and was pronounced dead by a few paramedics and then about an hour later he comes back to life.

[Maniac1]

You can know that the wind is there because you can feel it. You can feel it blowing against your face and you can feel it blowing through your hair. You can't see the wind, but you know it is there because you can feel it.

Comparing the wind and god is like comparing wine to water.

Both have some things in common, but the texture and ingredients are totally different.

So we can't see the wind, so what?! It's in a different category than supernatural beings. Does god really have that much of an effect on people, or is it the word? Think about it, words have a strong effect on people's mind...

One can say the same things over and over again, til one day, people start to believe it. God is the high and mighty, at first you think about it and say "yeah right" but after seeing people keep on saying this will happen if you do this, you fall for it and believe. Right? Scientists know how winds are created. Sure we can't see it, but it has all more attributes than god. Sure we can't see small breezes, but what about tornadoes? We can see them.