The Big Bang theory is false! Agree/Disagree?

Question

Arguments

P1 - The Universe is everything that is.
P2 - Everything that is cannot be smaller or larger than itself. Because everything is not realtive to anything.
P3 - Therefore the Universe could have never been infinitely small, nor can it be expanding.
Conclusion - Big bang theory is false

P1 - Things that grow larger, expand into something.
P2 - If the Universe is expanding - Then it must be expanding into something.
P3 - It cannot be expading into empty space - because space is part of the Universe. It cannot expand into nothing, because nothing does not exist.
Conclusion - The Big bang theory is false

P1 - Scientists say that time was created at the Big Bang. Therefore there is no "Before" the Big Bang.
P2 - Big Bang caused the Universe then it was casually realted to the Universe.
P3 - Casuality runs in both directions. Before an after.
P4 - Therefore if there is no before the big bang there can be no after the big bang.
Conclusion -Big Bang theory is false

P1 - Scientists say that there was no time before the Big Bang.
P2.The Big Bang explosion was caused by chemical reactions and mass being infintely dense? (Right/Wrong?)
P3 - If the explosion was "caused" by something, then "Time" had to exist.
Conclusion - The Big Bang theory is false

P1 - Hubbles law discovered that matter in the Universe is moving away from eachother at a constant speed.
P2 - Thereby postulating the Universe itself is expanding.
P3 - This violates the set theory which states that a set can be a subset of itself but not a member of another set.
P4. Positing that the Universe itself is expanding because space between matter is expanding, is too imply that the Universe in its entirety is governed by the same laws of space and matter.
P5 - This violates the set theory
Conclusion - Big Bang is false

Mari - Evolution is a fact! Sorry. This is not a creationist argument for the existence of a creator. I`m an atheist, I`am merely asserting that the Big Bang theory is flawed.

Master M - You said * This contradicts your statements above. "Every thing that is" is your definition of the universe. Emptiness is not something. It is not matter, it has no energy, it is the absence of something.

Q. Emptiness is something. Emptiness is empty space. Therefore if the Universe is expanding into emptiness, then it is expanding into empty space, and space is apart of the Universe.

When I said that Nothing does not exist I`am merely asserting that nothing cannot be something. You said that nothing is emptiness, thats absurd!

Answer 1

Boy did *you* open a can of worms! And out crawled all the creationists.

Some have given you good answers here, but when it comes to a Universe, our normal way of perceiving things no longer applies. It is at a kind of asymptotic limit of epistemology and understanding. Ironic, though, everything in the Universe follows certain laws...except the Universe itself! As our observation and thinking get closer and closer to the limits of the Universe, it becomes more and more difficult to rationalize. At the limits themselves, impossible. (It's probably illogical of me to even use the word "limits.")

When you think about it, a Universe couldn't be any other way. You can't think of the Universe as being contained, or limited, or having a center, or coming from something. All those comfy notions are only good for *parts* of the Universe. BTW, when it comes to the size of the Universe, I believe it should be thought of as infinite but bounded. Counter-intuitive? Sure.

Sounds like the ultimate cop-out, but by definition, I feel the Universe, as a whole, is unfathomable.

Eratosthenes, have you considered looking at it the way I just did, or do you still feel it is a cop-out? I don't blame you for being frustrated. You are eager to know. Me too. I think we have to concede collective defeat on this. No one will ever know. Ever. I think they will only discover that it is pointless to try, like pondering infinity.

Answer 2

"P2 - Everything that is cannot be smaller or larger than itself. Because everything is not realtive to anything."

What about density? Density/volume show that everything that is can be smaller or larger than itself. Try the ideal gas law.

"P3 - It cannot be expading into empty space - because space is part of the Universe. It cannot expand into nothing, because nothing does not exist."

This contradicts your statements above. "Every thing that is" is your definition of the universe. Emptiness is not something. It is not matter, it has no energy, it is the absence of something.

"because nothing does not exist"

Kind of a rediculous statement. Does not exist is the definition of nothing. Truisms don't prove a point.


"P1 - Scientists say that time was created at the Big Bang. Therefore there is no "Before" the Big Bang."

Hence relativity, which explains the whole point you are trying to make in this line of reasoning. Time doesn't exist at a singularity, which is what the Big Bang claimed existed the instant the Big Bang happened.

Answer 3

P1 : something rare is expensive
P2 : cheap diamonds are rare
P3 : cheap diamonds are expensive...

Hey! I can talk nonsense too!!!!

Now, if you understand why what I'm saying is stupid, then ask yourself if you're not doing the exact same thing. Then, after you've understood that you don't understand your own question, go to the closest university and ask if you can attend to a few physics classes : they will not tell you the "truth", but only theories that are widely believed in the scientific community.

However, if what you want is truth, then no scientist can ever help you. And this, you can only understant if you understant plato's alegory of the cave. No scientist "knows" the truth. a scientist can only work out a theory that explains everything he's seen so far. Not the truth. A true scientist will NEVER pretend to know the truth, no. He will only try to explain what he knows with the simplest possible explanation.

And a far as the existence of the universe is concerned, the simplest WORKING theory is that of the big bang. But the theory of the big bang CANNOT be explained to someone who doesn't understand quantum physics. So, if you're serious about your question, go and get a quantum physics book and read it.

big bang theory still has a few things missing, from my point of view. But dismissing it like that will not get you anywhere. Scientists are working on it. They're looking for "dark matter" and "dark energy" in the universe and also trying out a few of those string theories. So, leave them be : they're still working on it. And they'll also find a good explanation for the everlasting expansion of the universe once they find that "dark matter" of theirs

Answer 4

You can prove anything by starting with a false premise, as I learned in a symbolic logic class.

The theory says the big bang is creating time and space out of nothing. So your your premise that it cannot expand into nothing is false and that if there is no before the big bang there can be no after is false. Or at least falsely stating the assumptions that the big bang is based on.

Answer 5

It's like any other theory. I don't think that we will ever truly know (in this lifetime, anyway). Scientists and the ultra-curious will always try to put as many pieces together that they can to find a plausible explanation for the mysteries of the universe (& life). These are called theories.

I also consider all religious messages "theories". I mean, if God made the Universe, who made God? It's all too much for a human brain to consider or know for fact. That's why people turn to faith.

Answer 6

False. I believe that the Big Bank is Bull. My reasoning is similar. I think that if it was an explosion as Scientist claim, then everything would be distributed evenly throughout the Universe. As far as the rotation of the gases around the point of the explosion are concerned, that would not matter because the inertia of explosion would project everything straight outward. Very much like a bomb going off. Only difference being the vacuum of space would keep the inertia going outward for close to eternity. (for a very long time)

Answer 7

In philosophy, one would consider those unsound arguments. The premises aren't all true; for instance, the Universe isn't expanding into anything - it's just expanding. It's not an expansion in space; it's an expansion of space.This invalidates your second argument. The other arguments are similarly unsound because the premises are contestable; they are based on common sense and not on what science actually tells us about the Big Bang.

Answer 8

WHICH Big Bang Theory???
The reason I ask is because:
1. the more articles I read
2. the more shows I watch
3. the more astronomers I speak with
4. the more Yahoo I ingest
concerning the Big Bang Theor(y) (-ies) the more I realize that, just as with religion, there is:
1. no monolithic theory/belief system
2. no consensus amongst the believers
3. no concrete proof
4. no lack of apparent "logical gymnastics" required to reach stated conclusions (the logic may be correct, but the truth of it has not been satisfactorily explained yet)
IOW - One might as well ask if "religion" is false? How would one know how to answer that?

Answer 9

You bring up lots of good points with the holes in the Big Bang Theory. But I still agree with it as it is the best theory that we have now. 20 years from now our astronomers and astro-physicists may have found a better answer for "the question".

Answer 10

Agree. Because there are two major theories supporting the question: how did the universe started. and the bible have more evidence on how the universe started. for example, the bible is written thousands of years ago, but inside, it already said that the earth is round and not flat