For all you Big Bang belivers?

Question

A scientific theory for the original energy source for the "Big Bang" is totally lacking. What event pulled the trigger to start the Big Bang? Did the universe reach a critical energy or critical mass level that started the event? The ignition that supposedly started the Big Bang is devoid of science. There aren't any serious attempts to explain it because no explanation is possible. So for you who belive the Big Bang is possible, please give me your explanation.

Answer 1

The domain of science demands explanations and proofs... spirituality demands absolute faith! Traveling the path of pure spirituality... one ultimately gets answer to each and every question existing in the whole of Cosmos.

Science visualizes the events and the happenings limited by the five senses and the mind. Cosmic events like big bang are beyond the purview of the senses and the mind. The moment human being gains enlightenment... all becomes clear to one!

Only a few years before, scientists world over confirmed that the present Cosmos is still expanding. And for this expansion a critical energy level is necessary to maintain the minimum speeds. The moment the requisite speed is not available... the whole cosmos would start collapsing.

This collapse of the Cosmos... the dissolution of the Cosmos (aka Pralaya in Hinduism) winds up the complete Cosmos to size of half a thumb. Bhagavad Gita... the most sacred Scripture available on Mother Earth (the doctrine by Lord Krishna) makes it explicitly clear that this half the size of a thumb... Almighty God as we call it (the definition of Almighty God is the sum total of all purified souls in the Cosmos at a given point of time) unable to contain itself for long explodes with a big bang.

This half the size of a thumb (imagine the colossal power it must be holding) explodes with a big bang and starts a new cosmos... a new cosmic life cycle! Does it confirm that the big bang cannot occur in absence of the dissolution of the Cosmos... yes, it is a fact of life! More on big bang - http://www.godrealized.org/big_bang_theory.html

Answer 2

Creationism is devoid of science.

Many theorists now think it was more of a big bounce rather than a bang.

The Big Bounce is an event derived from the oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe. Also, if the universe is closed, this theory would predict that once this incarnation of the universe collapses it will spawn another universe in an event similar to the Big Bang after a universal singularity is reached.

According to one version of the Big Bang theory of cosmology, in the beginning the universe had infinite density. Such a description seems to be at odds with everything else in physics, and especially quantum mechanics and its uncertainty principle. It is not surprising, therefore, that quantum mechanics has given rise to an alternative version of the Big Bang theory.

According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce, or 'Bang Bang Bang'. This suggests that we might be living in either the first universe or the 2 billionth universe.

The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, were not so constant during the Big Crunch, especially in the interval stretching 10 − 43 seconds before and after the point of inflection. (One unit of Planck time is about 10 − 43 seconds.)

If the fundamental physical constants were determined in a quantum-mechanical manner during the Big Crunch, then their apparently inexplicable values in this universe would not be so surprising, it being understood here that a universe is that which exists between a Big Bang and its Big Crunch. The problem of failed universes (those that fail to produce carbon-based life forms) is also resolved.

Answer 3

Every basic level of knowledge requires some faith to back it up... as much faith as religion requires. For example, we have faith that things exist as we see them. The only true knowledge we have is that we, individually, exist on some level. How we exist, if others exist, the existance of our environment... all these require a level of faith. Once we get past that faith, we can actually see science and religion for what they truley are. The big bang theory IS completely possible... in fact scientists have already duplicated it on a very small scale. They had energy moving extremely fast crash into other energy, and actually were able to create mass. Many people would argue that this is evidence for the big bang theory, and it proves that God didn't create the universe. I disagree. This, if anything, shows more possibility for the existance of God (obviously not proving His existance). It shows that mass can be created out of nothing (essentially what God did).

If you think humans are capable of answering these complex questions of our existance, ask youselves these questions. How are two infinities (empty space and time) possible, but yet how are they not possible. They say our universe is expanding, but into what? What is beyong empty space, if not more empty space? How could space have a beginning and end, and yet how could it not? Same with time... how could time have not began at some point, and yet how could it have a beginning? How is it possible to not have a second or a minute at one point?

These questions are only meant to show you that we don't really know anything. We have to use faith in the information available... and the collective thinking of our species, to try and advance our knowledge to understand it better. These answers will not be explained in our life time... meaning that if there is no afterlife, none of us will ever know.

Answer 4

What makes you think that is what the Big Bang theory was meant to explain. The big bang theory grew out of an attempt to deal with the evidence of an expanding universe. That it leads to a singularity at the beginning of the universe is a result of the logic in the theory, a prediction. All other predictions made by the theory have turned out to be true, including the background microwave radiation.
There are many possible ideas and explanations of the beginning of the Universe.

Try this one out, it is a real mind bender.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19125591.500

I think Miss Kate means 10^(-41) seconds

Disney dudes Creationist link to Polonium Halos is referencing a work that has been thoroughly rejected as false and for them to still be posting it as unrefuted is extremely dishonest. Disney Dude himself should know better.

Answer 5

Sorry, just because you are not aware of modern scientific theories does not mean that a scientific theory is totally lacking. I am aware of two proposed theories that are plausible enough that serious research is being done. Both theories are described in Brian Greene's books The Fabric of the Cosmos and The Elegant Universe.

But even if these theories weren't known, your argument is still wrong. You are making an "Argument from Incredulity", which basically says "I can't comprehend how it could be possible, so therefore it's not possible (or God did it)." Just because you can't comprehend a possibility, that does not mean that no one else can now, or in the future.

Answer 6

I have no explanation for the Big Bang that would satisfy a theist. I will only say that the theory of the Big Bang at least gives an explanation for the universe rather than having some fairy tail God fly around creating things by waving his magic wand.

Answer 7

This is a better question than the one you posed earlier. True, science cannot explain the event that triggered the Big Bang. But for you to offer God as an explanation doesn't work either. You don't know. You believe because you have faith, but you don't know. What's wrong with accepting an I don't know answer rather than leaping to a conclusion you cannot prove?

Answer 8

you do know that the Big Bang and Christianity aren't incompatible right?

www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm

EDIT:
Misskate:
The Big Crunch (or oscillating universe theory) is pretty much a non starter. There is simply not enough matter in the universe to cause it to contract again. My understanding of modern cosmology is that they've moved from Big Bounce to String and are now on to M-theory (multiple universe - has something to do with quanta, I'm still trying to figure it out)

Further EDIT:
Elisabeth:
"Pejorative" is a great word, everyone should know it ;)
But your right, even though I don't agree with him on many things, Dawkins is freaking smart. I feel smarter just reading his work (and occasionally yelling at the pages I'll admit)

Answer 9

Really? Have you looked up brane theory? That would explain it. Or how about the other 20ish theories people have? We have ideas, and they are testable. They need to be tested - we're building the instrumentation to do so. There's way to much to go into here, so I'll just direct you to AstroPH or ADS so you can read the papers yourself.

And the fact that you asked this in the religion section, not astronomy, makes me think either you were banking on there being no astronomers hanging out here, or you don't want a real answer. So I won't waste more time on this.

Answer 10

I would suggest you read a very interesting book, but only under the following conditions: If you hold only a hs diploma and your vocabulary isn't very large, forget it. The author writes very tight arguments, and practically every sentence is a topic one. The major criticism is that his editors ought to have dummied it down a bit.... there is no reason to have such words as "pejorative", when a better know word would do just as well

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

And your respondents in Astronomy, answered your question quite well