Big Bang IV ?

Question

A previous poster suggested that believing that God created the universe is lazy speculation while scientists are being inellectually responsible in their theories. It seems to me that scientist proposing theories that are based on observations of the natural universe should at least theorize as to the genesis of such observations and theories. To say that the universe and time were created from an extremely dense mass of matter and energy begs the question, "Where did this mass come from and what forces caused it to explode?"

One poster said that there is no such thing as nothingness and that energy and matter has just always been but it seems to me that to carry this thought further either scientifically or philosophically, that there must be an origin or a creative spark that started all things in motion for creation. All this being said, why is it more likely that science theorems are more correct than Christian teaching on Creation? God spoke and bang all things are created.

Answer 1

Some higher being HAD TO CREATE EVERYTHING even if it was the material to cause the big bang or else you have two/three theories that conflict scientifically. big bang created every thing but you have the 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter which collectively state that neither ENERGY OR MATTER(or mass) can be CREATED OR DESTROYED, only transferred.
something had to put it there or some scientist is wrong.

Answer 2

Suggesting it was god is not more correct, but it is more RESTRICTIVE.

Religion allows no revision. Science does. Humans are rarely content with pat answers to controversial questions, which is the engine behind the progress of society. At the very least, science allows us the attractive option of revision.

Consider this. Prior to the discovery of the atom, the science did not exist to describe or explain things like the sun, a-bombs, matter, etc. The sun was a god. The phrase atomic reaction was gobbledygook. Matter simply was, although some people postulated that bigger things were made out of smaller things. The universe arose out of a great "ether", or god did it, and that was enough for many people for many years.

But, sometimes we "know" things without being able to explain HOW we know them. We don't have the words or the science to describe them, because we haven't invented them/it yet. There is just this feeling that the current explanation is wrong and the correct explanation lies elsewhere, and often that direction isn't always the popular one.

That is where we are with the origin of the universe. There is a consensus among learned scientists, and many ordinary people, that the god answer is wrong, and even though we don't have the correct answer, there is an overwhelming belief that it is out there, somewhere, waiting to be found.

Naturally, people content with "god did it" feel threatened by the seekers, not because we do anything to hurt believers, but because of the implications to religion *IF* we find the answers we are looking for. It is outrageous, however, to suggest we stop seeking simply because it could potentially upset the majority of people on planet earth.

Answer 3

The problem is, without time existing prior to the Big Bang, there isn't such a thing as "before the Big Bang". As for matter always being there, that too is incorrect since "always" wouldn't happen either.

Mass and energy are constantly being created from the quantum foam at the bottom level (size wise) of the universe. It then destroys itself. It is quite possible that the Big Bang happened because of a mass creation from this quantum foam.

Answer 4

Like many physicists and cosmologists today, I believe that existence equals necessary truth. Necessary truth being eternal simple tautological mathematical truth. An infinitesimal portion of that mathematical truth is the space-time universe we find ourselves in. The evidence is the amazing isomorphisms we observe between simple elegant mathematics and the reality we observe.

Now that I have explained why I believe the universe exists,why don't you tell me why you believe your infinitely complex god just happens to exist because I can see no apparent reason at all why such a complex creature could just happen to exist? Was he created? From what? By Whom? Did he evolve? Where? If you say he just is, then you have a problem because theists define god in such a way that it would be infinitely complex "having the knowledge to design universes". Where does that knowledge come from?

Answer 5

An infinite regression of causes seems impossible, so atheists and theists can both agree on the likely existence of uncaused causes. The theist argues that the uncaused cause of the universe is a god, but then cannot explain or provide any evidence for the existence of said entity. The atheist, on the other hand, has quantum theory supported by real, objective, verifiable evidence, which says that matter comes into existence at random and uncaused. Draw your own conclusions.

Answer 6

Science does not have all the answers and does not purport to have them. It does seek the answer by searching, rather than assuming the answers are already known and lying to discredit the evidence that contradicts the assumption. Occam's Razor suggests that a naturalistic origin is more probable than a theistic origin, since the simpler answer is the mass-energy always existing than an intelligent being capable of creating that same mass-energy always existing.

Answer 7

I could answer your question precisely. To understand my answer you would have to hold advanced degrees in both mathematics and astrophysics. If I were to dumb-it-down until the average person can understand the theory, the arguments no longer constitute a proof, or even a complete explanation. It takes a great deal of education to understand the principles and mathematics of cosmology. This is because scientists must prove that their assertions are both correct and true -- not at all like the myriad unsubstantiated beliefs of the deluded faithful.

Answer 8

Try studying Kabbalah. The Zohar explained the Big Bang theory centuries ago.

Daniel Matt who is translating the Zohar into English is frequently invited to speak to university astronomers about the Big Bang.
.

Answer 9

No becuase gensis is a myth and it would be based on the assumption that god exists. Scienctist study things they can observe andmake their theories based on those observations. God can't be observed , it takes faith to believe in the concept of god.

Plus there are many more creation myth's out there besides the chrsitian creation myth so why aren't you asking about those also.

Answer 10

For crying out loud, you are so pathetic that you think your silly god imaging had to have a hand in everything you see. Then provide evidence for him, otherwise there is nothing in this world that would make us believe he is real and we should not waste time trying to squeeze your non existent sky daddy into our world. The world of reality.