• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Big Bang religion is impossible.

joko104 said:
That just pushes the time limit back to claiming there was something else in existence or before the big bang - which still leads to the question of where did that stuff or reality come from?
Click to expand...

I've tried to imagine what preexisted the universe in my mind, and I came up with a white expanse of endless uniform, pure energy, with no beginning or end and center or edges. What exactly was the nature of this energy is unimaginable, but it could of been anything. Then for some reason it altered it's state of static existence and imploded into a singularity of incalculable gravity and concentrated force. That lasted for a brief instant, when the outside of infinite opposing vacuum, caused a rapid expansion as it re-expanded the concentrated energy into new material, sub atomic particles or photon plasma. Even the singularity could not hold up to the outside vacuum, because it was the irresistible force.

What was once a singular pure energy, became a variety of forces by changing it's nature.
 
grip said:
But you can see what he means? I thought the same thing at first, that something can't come from nothing? Then it was obvious that they didn't know what "nothing" actually was. It could be infinite energy, spread out infinitely, in all directions or another dimension/universe. Whatever it is, it's a concept beyond current measuring or mathematics.
Click to expand...
He's trying to tie the Big Bang into conditions that existed before the Big Bang, so, no, I can't see what he means. The energy for the universe obviously existed prior to the Big Bang or it couldn't have happened. What conjectures may or may not be available about that energy has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory.


This is the same mistake ignorant people make to "refute" the Theory of Evolution, which, of course, says nothing at all about the origin of life on Earth. They want to tie the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang into an origin in order to refute them --- but neither theory addresses the issue of origins. If he wants to talk about origins he should just say so instead of making ridiculous claims about something he obviously doesn't understand.
 
Last edited:
Nothing existed before the big bang since space-time did not yet exist, there was no time in this universe for anything to happen in.
 
joko104 said:
That just pushes the time limit back to claiming there was something else in existence or before the big bang - which still leads to the question of where did that stuff or reality come from?
Click to expand...
And that question has nothing at all to do with the Big Bang Theory.

The fact is, we can't assume the natural laws as we know them even apply to what existed before the Big Bang. In fact, the odds are pretty good they don't. What you're doing is worse than trying to explain the physics of the Earth's core using principals from psychology.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
Nothing existed before the big bang since space-time did not yet exist, there was no time in this universe for anything to happen in.
Click to expand...

This is not true, if before is taken to mean causally and not temporarily. If time began with the big bang, then there clearly was no time before the big bang, but the big bang did not come from nothing.
 
MoSurveyor said:
He's trying to tie the Big Bang into conditions that existed before the Big Bang, so, no, I can't see what he means. The energy for the universe obviously existed prior to the Big Bang or it couldn't have happened. What conjectures may or may not be available about that energy has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory.


This is the same mistake ignorant people make to "refute" the Theory of Evolution, which, of course, says nothing at all about the origin of life on Earth. They want to tie the theories of Evolution and the Big Bang into an origin in order to refute them --- but neither theory addresses the issue of origins. If he wants to talk about origins he should just say so instead of making ridiculous claims about something he obviously doesn't understand.
Click to expand...

I guess, I wasn't looking for an underlying motive. So, you say it's impossible for the universe to appear from nothing, because by rational reasoning the energy had to come from somewhere? Problem with that is none of the rational laws of physics existed prior, especially reasoning, so why would the energy have to preexist?
 
grip said:
I guess, I wasn't looking for an underlying motive. So, you say it's impossible for the universe to appear from nothing, because by rational reasoning the energy had to come from somewhere? Problem with that is none of the rational laws of physics existed prior, especially reasoning, so why would the energy have to preexist?
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was impossible for that energy to come from nothing. What I said was that the energy had to exist "before" the Big Bang because the Big Bang Theory starts off with X amount of energy being there. The origin of that energy (or why it was there, if you prefer) is not part of the Theory.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I didn't say it was impossible for that energy to come from nothing. What I said was that the energy had to exist "before" the Big Bang because the Big Bang Theory starts off with X amount of energy being there. The origin for that energy is not part of the Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

Okay, well I agree with that statement.

The infinite may have no substance or energy at all. It may be of a nature we can't yet comprehend or rationalize? Or there may be no such thing as infinite or limitless, as far as we can discern. It would be interesting if the universal energy preexisted in another form, probable, but was beyond current physical experimentation. One thing I find strange is that conscious life forms arose as a result of universal forces but is it meaningless, or not as important as we credit it?

I think joko got hung up on Hawking's and Penrose's notion of what "nothing" is.
 
1. How do you know that nothing existed before the universe? How do you even know what extra-universal "stuff" would be? There's none of it in our universe. We can observe nothing outside our universe. We have no data whatsoever on how it got here, just on what it did when arrived. A massive explosion explains a lot of our observations of this universe.

2. How do you know the universe is a closed system? Black holes certainly cast doubt on that, and the universe may have come about through a conduit allowing matter and energy to begin to exist here. The second law of thermodynamics (which may well not have applied before the Big Bang took place), only applies to closed systems.

3. How do you know that any of the physical laws of our universe applied before and beyond its scope? We have, as I said before, no data on this. That's why we have multiverse theories (really hypotheses). Perhaps our universe was formed from the leftovers of a previous one.

4. How do you know what is or is not impossible in a scenario (before the physical universe existed) that we have no data on?
 
Paschendale said:
1. How do you know that nothing existed before the universe? How do you even know what extra-universal "stuff" would be? There's none of it in our universe. We can observe nothing outside our universe. We have no data whatsoever on how it got here, just on what it did when arrived. A massive explosion explains a lot of our observations of this universe.

2. How do you know the universe is a closed system? Black holes certainly cast doubt on that, and the universe may have come about through a conduit allowing matter and energy to begin to exist here. The second law of thermodynamics (which may well not have applied before the Big Bang took place), only applies to closed systems.

3. How do you know that any of the physical laws of our universe applied before and beyond its scope? We have, as I said before, no data on this. That's why we have multiverse theories (really hypotheses). Perhaps our universe was formed from the leftovers of a previous one.

4. How do you know what is or is not impossible in a scenario (before the physical universe existed) that we have no data on?
Click to expand...

1. The scientists aren't sure there's not a currently unobservable, prime force that still is the basis for all other forces. Unified field theories of everything are an attempt to tie it all together.

2. They're back to the theory that energy is never destroyed and information never lost. So it appears a closed system, except where the extra expandable space and dark energy are coming from.

3. I find the multiverse implausible for many reasons. But other dimensions, some hidden right within the framework of the currect universal structure more feasible.

4. And that's the million dollar question, with no known way but to do anything but speculate.
 
The difference between Science and Religion in the case of the origin of things is that when Science doesn't know, it admits it. When Religion doesn't know, it makes stuff up.

Don't know how the stuff of the Universe came to be?

Science: We can't know at this time what was before the big bang, or what caused it.
Religion: If there was a big bang, then God initiated it.
 
grip said:
Okay, well I agree with that statement.

The infinite may have no substance or energy at all. It may be of a nature we can't yet comprehend or rationalize? Or there may be no such thing as infinite or limitless, as far as we can discern. It would be interesting if the universal energy preexisted in another form, probable, but was beyond current physical experimentation.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that.



grip said:
One thing I find strange is that conscious life forms arose as a result of universal forces but is it meaningless, or not as important as we credit it?
Click to expand...
That's a whole can of worms, there ... ;)
 
Dezaad said:
The difference between Science and Religion in the case of the origin of things is that when Science doesn't know, it admits it. When Religion doesn't know, it makes stuff up.

Don't know how the stuff of the Universe came to be?

Science: We can't know at this time what was before the big bang, or what caused it.
Religion: If there was a big bang, then God initiated it.
Click to expand...

The problem with science is too many people cannot seem to tell where it ends and philosophy begins.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
I can agree with that, other than we can debate what is the "best hypothesis." Why isn't "God" the "best hypothesis?"
Click to expand...

For a lot of different reasons. For one, unless you get into the details of how God made something happen, saying "God made it happen" is no more useful than saying "I don't know how it happened". Either way, the cause is shrouded from view. Since you don't understand "how it happened" you can't use that understanding to make useful predictions - the very reason science is beneficial.

So scientists leave it at "I don't know" until they come up with a good explanation.

joko104 said:
I am not arguing for the existence of God. Rather, that the hypothesis of the big bang is reliance upon "faith" in that "hypothesis" and an acceptance of a metaphysical reality - wherein metaphysics means "beyond the known and perceivable physical properties."
Click to expand...

Ok, sure, modern science is predicated on a number of metaphysical assumptions, such as realism. But it's stuff most people would consider "common sense".

joko104 said:
Metaphysics COULD be also "mindless" or it could have a rationality or self realization.

One definite of God or gods, would be a self realization within metaphysical realities. Whether than intersects or has any relevancy to the species homo sapien is still another topic. Yet, equally, there is nothing proving the impossibility of something coming from nothing or of perpetual existence of matter, energy and physical properties is solely random or calculated.
Click to expand...

Wut?

joko104 said:
At the bottom line? I am pointing to human arrogance that for our absurdly limited intellect and even extremely limited sensory perception it is human nature to declare we can grasp the universe and all within it.
Click to expand...

Who said we completely understand the universe and everything in it? I've never heard anyone say that. Scientists certainly don't say that - they'd be out of a job if that were the case.

joko104 said:
Think of how much humans have evolved to "manipulate and create" on earth. Isn't it just a tad arrogant to conclude there are self realized entities have vastly greater creative skill than humans - and across time spans not compatible with the nearly momentary lifespan not only of a human - but even of the entire human race?
Click to expand...

Wut?

joko104 said:
Even just for humans, what do you think humans powers of "creation" will be 10 million years from now? Possibly humans will be able to build a universe. And the bacteria of it may also eventually evolve to a creature of just enough scientific understanding to conclude that certainly they weren't created either.
Click to expand...

ok, i'm not sure what your point is? Sounds like a premise for a bad sci-fi novel.
 
the_recruit said:
For a lot of different reasons. For one, unless you get into the details of how God made something happen, saying "God made it happen" is no more useful than saying "I don't know how it happened". Either way, the cause is shrouded from view. Since you don't understand "how it happened" you can't use that understanding to make useful predictions - the very reason science is beneficial.

So scientists leave it at "I don't know" until they come up with a good explanation.
Click to expand...
The philosopher seeks knowledge, rather than useful predictions in themselves. It is certainly possible to explore the nature of the material, and what it presupposes, in a philosophical way, rather than in a strictly scientific one. This is how one would surely seek more fundamental and universal knowledge on the subject than observations of particular, empirical phenomena.

There are numerous venerable philosophical arguments the fact the material implies a non-material cause. Indeed, until the 1960s, when ignorance of the history of though and scientism took their toll, pure materialism was rarely countenanced, because it was presumsed to be incoherent.
Ok, sure, modern science is predicated on a number of metaphysical assumptions, such as realism. But it's stuff most people would consider "common sense".
Click to expand...
This is not necessarily true. Cartesian Dualism and mechanism were very useful for simplifying the domain of early modern science and, more or less, have been inherited by contemporary natural science (although it has been argued that modern science has always smuggled in final causes), but I do not think these are common sense.

Famously, in physics the apple is not truly red in the sense we know red from everyday experience.
 
Last edited:
I tend to lean toward the steady state theory and away from the "one singular" big bang theory.

I recognize there is much theoretical equation backing for the big bang theory, but these equations are populated with a few variables that are both hypothesized and not proven and with variables, like assumptions about the nature of time, that are clearly false, thus creating a self-fulfilling hypothesis. I believe physicists have some back-tracking to do before they can really move much forward on the topic. Just because steady state equations are more challenging for us to formulate at this stage doesn't mean steady state isn't true.

But, whether one supports steady state, big bang, or whatever, the argument that something cannot come from nothing is just as easy to comprehend as the argument that something always existed is difficult to grasp.

So .. challenging.

That some want to call the steady state eternal something God or imagine that God's existence transcends both something and nothing and that God created the big bang, well, that's hardly people creating a "religion" .. is it?

Or is it.

Regardless, stimulating.
 
joko104 said:
There is a bizarre modern religion that credits the universe to a magical event they call "The Big Bang." Their belief is scientifically impossible.

It is impossible that energy can come from nothing - a direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Nor can matter come from absolute nothingness nor can properties such as gravity and magnetism.

While they certainly can believe the universe just poofed into existence by MAGIC and then blew up in a "big bang" for which planets, stars and the rest are fallout from that explosion, it is a particularly odd modern religious belief that is scientifically impossible.

It would make more sense for me to explain to police that a gun just magically appeared in my hand the very instant after someone was shot by it. Not one jury would believe in that something-from-nothing magic. Yet those of the Big Bang religion insists such a magical event happened because they just know by faith that it did. Most bizarre is those of the religion claim they aren't religious. Rather, they just believe in magic and claim impossible magic is different from religion. :roll:
Click to expand...

A singularity is not "Nothing"...it is a Singularity.

A religion is inherently unsupported by science, as it lives on faith alone...it has no data to support it.
 
the_recruit said:
:roll:

Actually the Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about what initiated "the big bang". It's simply a theory that universe originated as a infinitesimally small point a very long time ago, a theory that explains very well a number of cosmological observations. What caused that or why is beyond the scope of the theory.

There are various theories that have been proposed to explain what caused it (if anything), but those theories are pure speculation. The bottom line is that we don't know.
Click to expand...

Infinitesimal in realtion to the Universe? That is the concept my mind has not yet comprehended.

What or where is the Universe expanding into or in? What is the larger realm in which the Universe exists?

If anyone has good layman reference material that might help me be less confused, that would be great.
 
tecoyah said:
A singularity is not "Nothing"...it is a Singularity.

A religion is inherently unsupported by science, as it lives on faith alone...it has no data to support it.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Religion may be supported by faith (which is not necessarily blind faith - in traditional Christianity faith is sometimes seen as intuition of truth ingrained in the depth of our being- a viewpoint not limited to Christianity, I might add) and philosophy and, to a degree, science (although I would be cautious here and suggest natural science provides only some raw information that philosophy and faith can make use of). All the great faiths of the world have their great thinkers and philosophers. I am biased but all my favourite philosophers are deeply religious.

In traditional Christianity fideism, the claim that only blind faith is a legitimate or correct support for one's beliefs, is considered heresy.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
This is not true. Religion may be supported by faith (which is not necessarily blind faith - in traditional Christianity faith is sometimes seen as intuition of truth ingrained in the depth of our being- a viewpoint not limited to Christianity, I might add) and philosophy and, to a degree, science (although I would be cautious here and suggest natural science provides only some raw information that philosophy and faith can make use of). All the great faiths of the world have their great thinkers and philosophers. I am biased but all my favourite philosophers are deeply religious.

In traditional Christianity fideism, the claim that only blind faith is a legitimate or correct support for one's beliefs, is considered heresy.
Click to expand...

The use of terms such as "Intuition", "Philosophy", and "Faith" imply direct opposition to scientific principle and are thus incompatible with a fact based reality. As the bulk of religious thought cannot be verified, tested, or taken beyond hypothesis science has little use for it.....but religion can use the sciences whenever they wish.

They simply cannot use the whole and still retain faith.
 
tecoyah said:
The use of terms such as "Intuition", "Philosophy", and "Faith" imply direct opposition to scientific principle and are thus incompatible with a fact based reality. As the bulk of religious thought cannot be verified, tested, or taken beyond hypothesis science has little use for it.....but religion can use the sciences whenever they wish.

They simply cannot use the whole and still retain faith.
Click to expand...
You are saying philosophy is contrary to fact based reality? And how can the use of such terms imply opposition to fact based reality? So even critiques of faith, such as yourself, should never use the term?

Who says that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge? Such a claim is, of course, self-defeating, being an analytical and not a scientific claim.

What about logic and reason, for example. Logic and reason are scientific fields in the sense of natural science, which is what you are implying, yet they are necessary for humans to have any natural scientific knowledge at all.

I do wish people would learn that chanting science, science, science doesn't prove much.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
There is a bizarre modern religion that credits the universe to a magical event they call "The Big Bang." Their belief is scientifically impossible.

It is impossible that energy can come from nothing - a direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Nor can matter come from absolute nothingness nor can properties such as gravity and magnetism.

While they certainly can believe the universe just poofed into existence by MAGIC and then blew up in a "big bang" for which planets, stars and the rest are fallout from that explosion, it is a particularly odd modern religious belief that is scientifically impossible.

It would make more sense for me to explain to police that a gun just magically appeared in my hand the very instant after someone was shot by it. Not one jury would believe in that something-from-nothing magic. Yet those of the Big Bang religion insists such a magical event happened because they just know by faith that it did. Most bizarre is those of the religion claim they aren't religious. Rather, they just believe in magic and claim impossible magic is different from religion. :roll:
Click to expand...

1 Quite right. It cannot be a religion. There is nothing to worship in it.

2 It is however not scientifically wrong. To criticize it you would have to understand it. Saying that it's wrong when you don't understand it is called lying.
 
joko104 said:
There is a bizarre modern religion that credits the universe to a magical event they call "The Big Bang." Their belief is scientifically impossible.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the Big Bang theory, that's all.

It is impossible that energy can come from nothing - a direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Nor can matter come from absolute nothingness nor can properties such as gravity and magnetism.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang theory doesn't claim such. The Big Bang theory describes the development of the universe from just after it came into existence. It doesn't speculate what came before as that's outside the realm of the scientific method.

While they certainly can believe the universe just poofed into existence by MAGIC and then blew up in a "big bang" for which planets, stars and the rest are fallout from that explosion, it is a particularly odd modern religious belief that is scientifically impossible.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang theory doesn't theorize what happened before the existence of the universe as that would be pure speculation without any falsifiability. The Big Bang was the beginning of time, and without time there is no concept of 'before.'

It would make more sense for me to explain to police that a gun just magically appeared in my hand the very instant after someone was shot by it. Not one jury would believe in that something-from-nothing magic. Yet those of the Big Bang religion insists such a magical event happened because they just know by faith that it did. Most bizarre is those of the religion claim they aren't religious. Rather, they just believe in magic and claim impossible magic is different from religion. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's empirical evidence to support the Big Bang theory, such as the redshift of galaxies far away caused by the Doppler effect occurring in light. Not that you'd know what this is because it appears you haven't grasped the theory at all.

That's not to say the Big Bang is definitely true. It's a theory well-supported by empirical evidence, although new evidence is constantly made available and so theories are constantly tweaked. Unlike your religion which is immune from scrutinization and has no empirical evidence to support it.
 
Wessexman said:
You are saying philosophy is contrary to fact based reality? And how can the use of such terms imply opposition to fact based reality? So even critiques of faith, such as yourself, should never use the term?

Who says that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge? Such a claim is, of course, self-defeating, being an analytical and not a scientific claim.

What about logic and reason, for example. Logic and reason are scientific fields in the sense of natural science, which is what you are implying, yet they are necessary for humans to have any natural scientific knowledge at all.

I do wish people would learn that chanting science, science, science doesn't prove much.
Click to expand...

Nope, I am saying that philosophy is "based upon" fact based reality which implies it is not in opposition to, but instead uses it to forward itself. The only individual stating that scientific knowledge is the only form would be you, please refrain from placing your words into my mouth. I am chanting nothing...instead clearly stating the underlying basis of scientific principle and the differences between this and religious faith.

As seems par for the course...when religion is debated, anyone pointing out reality is accused of attacking.


We call this a persecution complex, and it is not in any way attractive or helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom