God vs. Science

[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?