• 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.

Moot said:
Belief isn't science.
Second law of thermodynamic might not apply in a gravitional system.....


Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is theorized that the big bang was the explosion of an extremly hot dense single sub atomic particle (primevil atom theory) containing quark–gluon plasma which is the building block of all matter. Then a trillionth of a trillionth second later protons and nutrons were formed and then three minutes later light gases such as hydrogen, helium, lithium, etc were formed.....

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Gravity seems to be the magic potion in our universe and it still can't be fully explained. But we know it exists because we can be observe its effects everywhere our observable universe and theorize that it may be responsible for the expansion of the universe. But even though the presense of gravity in our universe still can't be scientifically explained, religion accepts it as scientific fact.

Interstingly enough, it was a Belgian Catholic priest that came up with the primevil atom and Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

now have science explain where all that came from.
This is still based on the fact that something can come from nothing. that something has to be created.
even gravity has to be created before it can exist.

Do you know that hawking and other scientists calculated the how proficient the big bang had to have been in order to do what science claim it did?
not only that but they have calculated the numbers that make it possible for life to form on a planet given the same conditions.
the numbers are outside any possible scientific plausibility.

the big bang had to expand within on a ratio of 10^55 balance of matter and energy or all the matter would have collapsed back on itself right after the explosion.

it is about 1 out of 10^21 that the big bang was properly balanced.

the probability that it was gravity that allowed it to happen is about 1 in 10^21 again.
so we would be talking some sort of ultra super massive black hole more powerful than anything we have ever observed.

while there are many possibilities to how this came into being the fact is they are all so far out there in correctness or even probability that it is impossible to believe.
you have to remember that there is only 1 shot and 1 shot only otherwise the whole thing goes to rot.

it doesn't get 10 million tries to get it right.
 
the_recruit said:
:) I knew someone was going to bring this up, which is why I kept using the term "spatial". Time is often treated as a dimension, but it is not a spatial dimension. It's a temporal dimension and it's inherently different than the three spatial dimensions. I'm talking about another spatial dimension.
Click to expand...
Moot said:
I understand the difference, but it wouldn't be 'spacetime' without time in the equasion....nor would it be a four dimensional universe. In the most simplest terms...upward and downward, northward and southward, eastward and westard....and backward and futureward. Each set of directions is a dimension that makes up our observable four dimensional universe......aka spacetime.

BPR1-Coordinate-System-240.gif


But then, perhaps I missed your point in excluding time as one of the four dimensions.
Click to expand...
I would suspect that's the reason for time dilation?
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
now have science explain where all that came from.
This is still based on the fact that something can come from nothing. that something has to be created.
even gravity has to be created before it can exist.

Do you know that hawking and other scientists calculated the how proficient the big bang had to have been in order to do what science claim it did?
not only that but they have calculated the numbers that make it possible for life to form on a planet given the same conditions.
the numbers are outside any possible scientific plausibility.

the big bang had to expand within on a ratio of 10^55 balance of matter and energy or all the matter would have collapsed back on itself right after the explosion.

it is about 1 out of 10^21 that the big bang was properly balanced.

the probability that it was gravity that allowed it to happen is about 1 in 10^21 again.
so we would be talking some sort of ultra super massive black hole more powerful than anything we have ever observed.

while there are many possibilities to how this came into being the fact is they are all so far out there in correctness or even probability that it is impossible to believe.
you have to remember that there is only 1 shot and 1 shot only otherwise the whole thing goes to rot.

it doesn't get 10 million tries to get it right.
Click to expand...

Maybe it does take millions of tries.

We are in the Universe that made it happen.

Makes sense, because all the other Universes with the wrong laws wouldn't have people to calculate the odds....
 
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...

You're post is a monument to your ignorance of science. You don't understand anything about the big bang theory apart from "it's a bang and stuff" and then begin to lecture people on what you think it is and why that breaks the laws of thermodynamics? Lord, at least read up on it first. No where, I repeat, no where does the big bang theory state that the universe came from nothing.
 
ludin said:
now have science explain where all that came from.
This is still based on the fact that something can come from nothing. that something has to be created.
even gravity has to be created before it can exist.

Do you know that hawking and other scientists calculated the how proficient the big bang had to have been in order to do what science claim it did?
not only that but they have calculated the numbers that make it possible for life to form on a planet given the same conditions.
the numbers are outside any possible scientific plausibility.

the big bang had to expand within on a ratio of 10^55 balance of matter and energy or all the matter would have collapsed back on itself right after the explosion.

it is about 1 out of 10^21 that the big bang was properly balanced.

the probability that it was gravity that allowed it to happen is about 1 in 10^21 again.
so we would be talking some sort of ultra super massive black hole more powerful than anything we have ever observed.

while there are many possibilities to how this came into being the fact is they are all so far out there in correctness or even probability that it is impossible to believe.
you have to remember that there is only 1 shot and 1 shot only otherwise the whole thing goes to rot.

it doesn't get 10 million tries to get it right.
Click to expand...
It's my understanding that the reason the big bang didn't collapse back in on itself is because the "inflation" that occurred in the seconds after the big bang had an escape velocity faster than the speed of light. Inflation is the expansion of space during first few seconds after the big bang ......
"....In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is the expansion of space in the early universe at a rate much faster than the speed of light. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand, but at a slower rate...."
Click to expand...
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Perhaps the closest thing to "nothing" that can be observed would be the 'vacuume state' and is defined as having zero energy......

"...In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles....<snip>....

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.[3][4][5]...<snip>....

In many situations, the vacuum state can be defined to have zero energy, although the actual situation is considerably more subtle. The vacuum state is associated with a zero-point energy, and this zero-point energy has measurable effects. In the laboratory, it may be detected as the Casimir effect. In physical cosmology, the energy of the cosmological vacuum appears as the cosmological constant. In fact, the energy of a cubic centimeter of empty space has been calculated figuratively to be one trillionth of an erg.[8] An outstanding requirement imposed on a potential Theory of Everything is that the energy of the quantum vacuum state must explain the physically observed cosmological constant....."
Click to expand...
Vacuum state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
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...

This is why people who cannot understand science or are too lazy to understand what the science is saying shouldn't be talking about science.
 
Ikari said:
This is why people who cannot understand science or are too lazy to understand what the science is saying shouldn't be talking about science.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between understanding and then disagreeing with what is being said. if we just shut up and drank whatever they fed us then some of the world's most largest scientific discoveries never would have been made.

something created the big bang. it just didn't happen out of no where.
there is also no source as to where it came from or where it went to.

it is just speculation. given the effects of an explosion we should be seeing some signs of galaxies slowing down. they are not. they are in fact speeding up.

---------------------------------------------------
Moot

Perhaps the closest thing to "nothing" that can be observed would be the 'vacuume state' and is defined as having zero energy......
Click to expand...

even this still gives rise to the notion that something whether it be energy or mass still existed. it still does not explain where it came from. matter and energy simply do not just exist they have to be created from something else.

we know this because all time, matter, and energy all have a starting point of existence they are not infinite.

It's my understanding that the reason the big bang didn't collapse back in on itself is because the "inflation" that occurred in the seconds after the big bang had an escape velocity faster than the speed of light. Inflation is the expansion of space during first few seconds after the big bang ......
Click to expand...

it still has to adhere to the same principles and balance itself out. it doesn't get multiple attempts to do it. it gets one shot
if it doesn't go right the first time there is no going back and hitting the reset switch.
 
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...

"Their belief is scientifically impossible" Really? You Know that and how did you come to know that? Please enlighten us unwashed masses.
 
grip said:
Nothing = literally the absence of any material, energy or known thing that can be measured, observed, defined or quantified.
Click to expand...

What do you know about virtual particles, grip?
 
ludin said:
There is a difference between understanding and then disagreeing with what is being said. if we just shut up and drank whatever they fed us then some of the world's most largest scientific discoveries never would have been made.

something created the big bang. it just didn't happen out of no where.
there is also no source as to where it came from or where it went to.

it is just speculation. given the effects of an explosion we should be seeing some signs of galaxies slowing down. they are not. they are in fact speeding up.
Click to expand...

This is simply not true, and you need to perhaps research before you run your mouth. The Big Bang does not necessitate a Big Crunch. While there are theories, including the Big Bounce, which would predict a cyclic universe, it's not necessary and is not demanded by the Big Bang. It could expand forever. Furthermore, even our current expansion calculations and observations don't discard a Big Crunch in general. So that statement is right out.

Something doesn't come from nothing. Let's address this misunderstanding you have. First off, it's not universally true. In fact, energy conservation can be violated in our own expanded universe for short time periods. How much so for a compressed universe? Today we know of phenomenon such as vacuum fluctuation. This fluctuation is the spontaneous generation and subsequent annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairs from the vacuum energy of space. This is known. Vacuum genesis is also a theory that would explain the origin of the Big Bang. It is in fact quite consistent with all observations, and would even predict a flat universe. And just so you know, all current measurements demonstrate a flat universe.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. You're trying to use science terms, but you don't have an idea on how to wield them. It's obvious from your mistakes in your post above. Furthermore, the Big Bang is the theory which currently best fits all the observables. If you're going to claim that it is incorrect, then you are going to need to produce a theory which better explains the observables. Until then, and coupled with this poor understanding of science, you don't have an argument to stand on.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
What do you know about virtual particles, grip?
Click to expand...


Yes, they appear as temporary particles that pop in and out of existence. But they still excite the same underlying quantum fields as real particles.

I'm not talking about a force that has some existence, even temporarily. I'm talking about the existence of literally "nothing".

There's no such thing as "nothing", except as a concept or word, not as an observable, measurable entity.

The "infinite" is also unobservable in it's entirety and immeasurable.


This statement below, from MIT, confuses me. First they say the flat universe is infinite, then it's 250 times the size of the observable universe. Doesn't that still make it finite, or are they using the comparing volume, as a minimal in their formula?

They say that the curvature of the Universe is tightly constrained around 0. In other words, the most likely model is that the Universe is flat. A flat Universe would also be infinite and their calculations are consistent with this too. These show that the Universe is at least 250 times bigger than the Hubble volume. (The Hubble volume is similar to the size of the observable universe.)
Click to expand...
Cosmos At Least 250x Bigger Than Visible Universe, Say Cosmologists | MIT Technology Review
 
Ikari said:
This is simply not true, and you need to perhaps research before you run your mouth. The Big Bang does not necessitate a Big Crunch. While there are theories, including the Big Bounce, which would predict a cyclic universe, it's not necessary and is not demanded by the Big Bang. It could expand forever. Furthermore, even our current expansion calculations and observations don't discard a Big Crunch in general. So that statement is right out.

Something doesn't come from nothing. Let's address this misunderstanding you have. First off, it's not universally true. In fact, energy conservation can be violated in our own expanded universe for short time periods. How much so for a compressed universe? Today we know of phenomenon such as vacuum fluctuation. This fluctuation is the spontaneous generation and subsequent annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairs from the vacuum energy of space. This is known. Vacuum genesis is also a theory that would explain the origin of the Big Bang. It is in fact quite consistent with all observations, and would even predict a flat universe. And just so you know, all current measurements demonstrate a flat universe.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about. You're trying to use science terms, but you don't have an idea on how to wield them. It's obvious from your mistakes in your post above. Furthermore, the Big Bang is the theory which currently best fits all the observables. If you're going to claim that it is incorrect, then you are going to need to produce a theory which better explains the observables. Until then, and coupled with this poor understanding of science, you don't have an argument to stand on.
Click to expand...

Big Bounce, Big Crunch, you left out Big Mouth.......and WTF is "right out"? You offer no proof of any kind other than man is definitely connected to the monkey. Oh, and until you offer up proof to the contrary something does in deed come from we interpret as "nothing".
 
rhinefire said:
Big Bounce, Big Crunch, you left out Big Mouth.......and WTF is "right out"? You offer no proof of any kind other than man is definitely connected to the monkey. Oh, and until you offer up proof to the contrary something does in deed come from we interpret as "nothing".
Click to expand...

The Lamb Shift already demonstrates vacuum fluctuations, so there's that. What was right out was your insistence that the Big Bang would necessitate a Big Crunch...it doesn't.

Fact of the matter is that the Big Bang is the theory that best explains the observables and if you want to poo poo it, then you'll need to explain the observables with higher precision and accuracy that the Big Bang.
 
I love to read posts on a subject that has yet to be defined. Why not argue God? "Yes the law of this and that are disproportionate to the tralfam equonix but no one knows yet what the hell happened.
 
rhinefire said:
I love to read posts on a subject that has yet to be defined. Why not argue God? "Yes the law of this and that are disproportionate to the tralfam equonix but no one knows yet what the hell happened.
Click to expand...

Why argue god? there is no measurable evidence nor testable predictions to do so. It is just an unsubstantiable stopgap that gets you nowhere while stifling exploration and discovery.

Really not sure what this "undefined subject is that you are referring to, but if it is the big bang you are asserting is undefined, it is what the evidence, measurements and calculations point to. There are testable predictions, former (and existing) holes in our knowledge that say if this is true then "x, y and z" should occur, then we learn that "x, y and z" do indeed occur.

If we had measurable evidence and testable predictions that bore out and pointed to this "god" then that avenue would be able to be explored scientifically, but we do not, so it is not.
 
grip said:
Not 249 times though?

I guess, I got it right that it's a minimal to the infinite.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. That's usually what "at least 250" means.
 
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...


I always find it amazing how many things theists try to turn into a 'religion' so they can try to use atheist style arguments against them.
Science is a religion...
Atheism is a religion...
Secularism is a religion...
BBT is a religion...
Evolution is a religion...

Your atheist style arguments don't work because none of these things are a religion.

Additionally, your comments regarding the BBT demonstrate you are just parroting some anti-science source which has absolutely no friggen clue about what the BBT theory actually says.

In a word: Pathetic.
 
Originally Posted by grip View Post
Nothing = literally the absence of any material, energy or known thing that can be measured, observed, defined or quantified.
Click to expand...

zgoldsmith23 said:
What do you know about virtual particles, grip?
Click to expand...

And what about space and time?

If they exist then something exists. Although it may be that they need some sort of reference to actually be. So perhaps lack of any matter or any order what so ever will create the same functional conditions of the Big Bang again...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom